Avoiding repetition while still using 'recur'

Hi, Here is my solution to 4clojure problem #177: Write a function that takes in a string and returns truthy if all square [ > ] round ( ) and curly { } brackets are properly paired and legally nested, > or returns falsey otherwise. > (defn valid-parens? [s] (loop [[ch & chs] s stack []]

Re: Clojure for the Brave and True - infix notation exercise

Thanks miner! On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 10:20:54 PM UTC+2, miner wrote: > > Not exactly the same problem, but you might like to see an infix > implementation from “The Joy of Clojure” by Fogus and Chouser. > > http://fogus.me/fun/unfix/infix-src.html > > The “Joy” code makes intermediate

Re: Clojure for the Brave and True - infix notation exercise

Thank you Jason, this is indeed a much nicer solution. On Friday, June 24, 2016 at 8:51:26 PM UTC+2, Jason Felice wrote: > > Recursive descent parsers are much smaller for simple cases. Basically, > you write one function per level of precedence, and each tries, greedily, > to consume as much

Re: Avoiding repetition while still using 'recur'

Skimming through but that `case` resolves to either false or a recur so sure you can move that case to an helper fn which returns true or false. If false then `return` else `recur`? On 26 June 2016 at 13:43, Botond Balázs wrote: > Hi, > > Here is my solution to 4clojure

Re: Avoiding repetition while still using 'recur'

The easiest way would be to factor out the bracket matching code, since that's the only thing that changes between your different case statements. For instance: (defn valid-parens? [s] (let [opening-brackets {\( \), \[ \], \{ \}} closing-brackets (clojure.set/map-invert

Re: Avoiding repetition while still using 'recur'

Thanks guys. Very nice and simple solution, James. On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 3:21:56 PM UTC+2, James Reeves wrote: > > The easiest way would be to factor out the bracket matching code, since > that's the only thing that changes between your different case statements. > For instance: > >

Re: is there a way to use drip to speed up the running of unit tests?

I also highly recommend test-refersh! Alan On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Jake McCrary wrote: > Hi Fenton, > > In my experience the way to get faster feedback from your tests is to have > them run in a way that doesn’t require stopping and starting a process. > This can

Workshop report: Generative design systems with Clojure

Hi everyone, last week I've been teaching a 2-day workshop about building generative design systems with Clojure and have just published a report incl. various outputs & code samples produced: https://medium.com/@thi.ng/workshop-report-generative-design-with-clojure-7d6d8ea9a6e8#.mai46g3no

Re: Avoiding repetition while still using 'recur'

To add a little variant of James Reeve's code: You can avoid the loop/recur by using reduce: (defn valid-parens? [s] (let [opening-brackets {\( \), \[ \], \{ \}} closing-brackets (clojure.set/map-invert opening-brackets)] (empty? (reduce (fn [stack c] (if

Re: is there a way to use drip to speed up the running of unit tests?

I would recommend looking at bolth . It’s an extremely fast test runner, has nice stacktraces, diffs, e.t.c. On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:28 AM Alan Thompson wrote: > I also highly recommend test-refersh! > Alan > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 8:47

Re: Avoiding repetition while still using 'recur'

I didn't know that reduction can be stopped with reduced. Thanks Andy! On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 10:08:47 PM UTC+2, Andy- wrote: > > To add a little variant of James Reeve's code: You can avoid the > loop/recur by using reduce: > > > (defn valid-parens? [s] > (let [opening-brackets {\( \),