On 3 February 2010 08:58, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> condp was specifically designed to be a scheme-like cond with :>>
> support and such.
Well, I like condp a lot (really, condp FTW! -- definately worth a
define-syntax in Scheme :-)), but it's nothing like Scheme's cond
(which is a good thing, a
Hi,
On Feb 3, 1:54 am, Michał Marczyk wrote:
> Something I wanted to mention is that this could provide a use case
> for an Scheme style cond macro, especially if the processing logic got
> more involved -- have a look at my scond if you'd like:
>
> http://gist.github.com/293212
>
> Basically th
Something I wanted to mention is that this could provide a use case
for an Scheme style cond macro, especially if the processing logic got
more involved -- have a look at my scond if you'd like:
http://gist.github.com/293212
Basically this would allow you to write things like
(scond [(re-matches
(some) definitely seems like the way to go. Now I've got to move onto
my next problem, which is totally the number of duplicate files and
the bytes they take up. I'm guessing at this point that something like
(reduce) will be the way to go.
Thanks for all your help. This won't be the last time you
On 3 February 2010 00:50, ataggart wrote:
> It occurs to me you could use 'some instead of nested if-lets:
>
> (some identity
> [(first (re-matches #"([0-9]+) byte\(null\)each:" line))
> (first (re-matches #".*(\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)" line))])
A simplified version:
(some #(first (re-matches % line))
It occurs to me you could use 'some instead of nested if-lets:
(some identity
[(first (re-matches #"([0-9]+) byte\(null\)each:" line))
(first (re-matches #".*(\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)" line))])
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to t
On Feb 2, 3:02 pm, Wardrop wrote:
> The problem is, the only output I get is "Finished!". If however, I
> run this on the command line, I get a long list of nil's in amongst
> the strings "Byte pattern!" and "File pattern!". I expect the nil's
> not to show when this is run as a script, but why
Hi,
Am 02.02.2010 um 23:48 schrieb Wardrop:
> (for [line (line-seq (reader "C:\\filedupes.txt"))]
> (cond
>((complement nil?) (re-matches #"([0-9]+) byte\(null\)each:"
> line))
> (println "Byte pattern!")
>((complement nil?) (re-matches #".*(\.[0-9a-zA-Z]+)" line))
> (println "
Haha, I was just trying out traditional formatting with clojure and
had left it that way without noticing.
As for the lazy thing, I should have known that as it wasn't long ago
I was ready about laziness in the book I'm reading. Wrapping (dorun)
around the (for) loop has fixed it.
Could someone n
for is lazy, and your code formatting is horrible.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Wardrop wrote:
> I've noticed that the output of a script, is often different to the
> output of the same commands if run on the REPL. This makes sense, but
> here's a situation which has got me a little confused.
I've noticed that the output of a script, is often different to the
output of the same commands if run on the REPL. This makes sense, but
here's a situation which has got me a little confused. I'm trying to
run this code as a script...
(use '[clojure.contrib.duck-streams])
(for [line (line-seq (r
11 matches
Mail list logo
