Re: (= function) evaluation steps

Your explanation is more understandable, thank you ! It's easier to get the full picture about '=' now that I know there are one implementation of this function for "each" data type. (I say "each" because I think some multiple types can share the same implementation). Thank you again, you

Re: Closure for object pattern? A good idea?

Very clear thank you ! I can't wait to know these concept as I am discovering clojure with the 'Functionnal programming for OO programmer' book. Thank you again Le samedi 17 décembre 2016 18:53:31 UTC-5, James Reeves a écrit : > > On 17 December 2016 at 22:13, Rafo Ufoun

Re: Are there file watchers that can tell me when a file is done uploading?

Thank you. I do move and rename the file, though even knowing when to move to it depends on knowing when it is fully uploaded. In this case, we have many ways that the files might be uploaded, so I prefer to deal with the file inside of Clojure, rather than trying to customize each of the

Re: Closure for object pattern? A good idea?

On 17 December 2016 at 22:13, Rafo Ufoun wrote: > I'm a real newbe to clojure and functionnal programming but reading your > answer raised a question : > > Where do you "store" the stopwatch object which you are passing to all > your functions ? > > I understand that

Re: (= function) evaluation steps

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:54:07 PM UTC-6, Rafo Ufoun wrote: > > Is there a special check when the equality is asked on map ? > = does different things for different kinds of values, so in some sense yes. The implementation for maps (written in Java) is here:

Re: Closure for object pattern? A good idea?

On Dec 10, 2016 1:47 AM, "Didier" wrote: I'm wondering what everyone thinks of using closures to mimic a simplistic object system in Clojure? I'm not sure what to think of it yet, but the idea is that you wrap object fields inside a closed function, and it returns a map of

Re: Closure for object pattern? A good idea?

I'm a real newbe to clojure and functionnal programming but reading your answer raised a question : Where do you "store" the stopwatch object which you are passing to all your functions ? I understand that mutability is not needed to develop the functions you described but all of them take

Re: (= function) evaluation steps

Is there a special check when the equality is asked on map ? I thought the evaluator evaluate all the expression the same way , by substituting each expression contained in the list to other evaluators. In the book, the author tells the substitution rule for function evaluation is responsible

[ANN] Kern 1.1.0 A library of parser combinators

Kern is a text-parsing library: https://github.com/blancas/kern 1.1.0 has two fixes (times, <+>); operator <*> minimum arity is now 1 (formerly 2). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to

(= function) evaluation steps

Map equality is checked by verifying that the two maps have the same set of keys and that each key is mapped to = values. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts

Re: What is the correct way to use 'into'?

`into` with more three arguments is a variant where the middle argument is a transducer. So your original code was trying to use default-config as a transducer, this code would work with either merge or into chained with ->: (-> {} (into default-config) (into more-config)) I recently did a

Re: migae: clojure on Google App Engine

I was recently informed about https://github.com/nickbauman/cljgae-template which aims to provide a GAE template for leiningen projects. As it didn't exist when I started with GAE, I wrote up a summary of my experience bootstrapping things here:

(= function) evaluation steps

Hi everyone, I'm reading the excellent 'Functionnal programming for OO programmer' and I encounter an issue understanding how the '=' function works. We have a 'Triangle' structure defined by a map of 'Point's so a Triangle is like {:point1 {:x 1 :y 1} :point2 {:x 1 :y 1} :point3 {:x 4 :y 2}}

What is the correct way to use 'into'?

I was trying to combine 2 maps into a new map, as you can see here. I printed both maps to the screen so I could see that, indeed, they were both maps. And yet I got a NullPointerException on the last line here: (defn update-config [more-config] (swap! config-holder (fn