How about this (using only map, reduce) -
user=> (def data1 [[:a1 :b1 :c1]
[:a1 :b1 :c2]
[:a1 :b2 :c3]
[:a1 :b2 :c4]
[:a2 :b3 :c5]
[:a2 :b3 :c6]
[:a2 :b4 :c7]
[:a2 :b4 :c8]])
user=> (pprint
(reduce
(fn f [tree r
I think the following function does what you want (I've also published
it @ http://gist.github.com/449266 if you find Gists prettier):
(defn munge [vs]
(if (== 1 (count (first vs)))
(reduce into vs)
(let [gs (group-by #(% 0) vs)]
(map (fn [k v]
{:data k :children v})
Thank you all for your help. This helps so much!
I did try using into a number of times, but didnt get that to work. I
have to admit that, except for the rudamentary examples I have not
used reduce too much yet. I was reviewing Stu Halloways code on group-
by and was trying to come up with a wa
I took a crack at it. Whenever I think of building up a structure, I
think of reduce or into. Like Meikel, I create a nested, sorted-map
tree first, then convert to the vector-of-maps format you describe.
(defn add-path [root path]
(let [add-child (fn [parent child-path]
(if
Hi,
On Jun 22, 4:55 am, Base wrote:
> [
> {:data A1
> :children [{:data B1 :children [{:data C1} {:data C2}]]}
> {:data B2 :children [{:data C3} {:data C4}]]}
>
> {:data A2
> :children [{:data B3 :children [{:data C5} {:data C6}]]}
>
Is it really necessary to have the keys :data and :children? If not:
(reduce (fn [r x] (assoc-in r x {})) {} (partition 3 '(A1 B1 C1 A1 B1 C2 A1
B2 C3 A1 B2 C4 A2 B3 C5 A2 B3 C6 A2 B4 C7 A2 B4 C8)))
{A2 {B4 {C8 {}, C7 {}}, B3 {C6 {}, C5 {}}}, A1 {B2 {C4 {}, C3 {}}, B1 {C2
{}, C1 {
Works out
Hi all -
This seems like it should be easy, but for some reason i have thought
myself into a box on this and now am stuck.
I have a data set of rows/ columns that has some hierarchical data in
it:
COLUMN A B C
A1 B1 C1
A1 B1 C2
A1 B
