As a bit of a newbie to the functional + identity/state design space,
I'm struggling a bit with where to use identity constructs (refs) and
where to stay with pure functions, and could use some guidance. Pardon
me if some of my terms are a bit off. Here is a simple hypothetical
app for matching
Thank you all, the replies so far and the questions have already
deepened my understanding considerably!
Looking forward to more. I think a bit more discussion like this (not
necessarily my quite skimpy example) would be quite valuable to many
like me.
--
You received this message because you
Re: Emacs + Slime + paredit. I did not see Clojure listed as supported
for Slime and paredit. Do you know if:
- AquaEmacs (mac) is a shoe-in?
- Can you do all Slime stuff in Clojure? evaluate, macro-expand, docs,
etc?
- Same for par-edit
Thanks!
On Mar 4, 1:56 pm, Baishampayan Ghose
Would a Clojure app benefit sigificantly from a declarative functional
UI along the lines of
Lunascript http://www.asana.com/luna or FlapJax http://www.flapjax-lang.org/
?
The results look quite impressive ... but I don't have much to compare
to in Clojure. I am relatively new to both Clojure and
Just tried this with NetBeans 6.7.1 on OSX 10.5.8. Got through all
setup steps with no problem. When I try to start the project REPL, I
get:
There did not appear to be both valid clojure and clojure-contrib
jars present in the classpath... (some paths to ...1.2.0-master-
SNAPSHOT.jar)
If I elect
Really nice!
Is it aware of all Clojure structures, including maps etc?
--
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 from new members are moderated - please be patient
(deftype Account [owner balance])
(deftype Person [accounts])
joe has 1 account.
How to I create / initialize joe the account with mutual references?
I'd rather not use refs.
Thanks!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this
Is this a Clojure restriction, or is it intrinsic to functional
programming?
If my app is essentially about a user creating and editing a graph
structure (sometimes via crud-level interactions, other times by
somewhat larger refactorings), is either Clojure or functional not a
good match?
Thanks
It's a consequence of immutable data structures, which are an aspect of
functional programming. An immutable object can never be changed
But single-assignment is a quite valid (and more flexible?) form of
immutability. I'm not convinced cycles are intrinsically tied to it in
any way.
(In
Why this behavior?
user= (#{5 nil} 5)
5
user= (#{5 nil} 4)
nil
user= (#{5 nil} nil)
nil
rather than the seemingly more informative:
user= (#{5 nil} 5)
true
user= (#{5 nil} 4)
false
user= (#{5 nil} nil)
true
user= (#{5 false} true)
false
user= (#{5 false} false)
true
i.e. set as characteristic
On Apr 6, 8:09 am, Christophe Grand christo...@cgrand.net wrote:
Let say one can write:
(def john-doe {:name John Doe :email j...@doe.com :account {:owner
#cyclic reference to the root map :balance 1000}})
At this point the cyclic structure is a consistent value. As long as
updates create new
Please don't misunderstand this post - it is not asking for a change
of syntax, just trying to understand something.
Clojure has chosen positional parameters (just like for Lisp, C, C++,
Java, Ruby, Python, Prolog, ...)
Smalltalk composes a full method name from a prefix-name + named
parameters.
On Apr 6, 12:16 am, Alex Osborne a...@meshy.org wrote:
Calling the set as if it is a fn is a short-hand for get, that is
retrieving an element from the set. Why would you want to do this, when
to look it up you need to know what element is? Sets are based on
value-equality not
On Apr 6, 4:46 pm, Jarkko Oranen chous...@gmail.com wrote:
problem is that they also make some very common functional patterns
cumbersome: most notably function application (ie. apply),
composition, and higher-order functions.
I don't think it should be either-or (and positional would be
On Apr 6, 5:23 pm, Stuart Halloway stuart.hallo...@gmail.com wrote:
Have you seen destructuring of rest args in the current master branch?
(defn foo [ {:keys [a b c]}] [a b c])
(foo :a 1 :c 3)
= [1 nil 3]
With this last bit of sugar in place I am extremely happy with
Clojure's arg
Don't you think
- fixed-order named parameters
could (should?) be a separate issue from
- optional, any-order, named parameters
?
;; :x :y are fixed order, named, while :a :b are optional, named
(defn foo [:x :y {:keys [a b]] [x, y, a, b])
(foo :x 1 :y 2)
= [1 2 nil nil]
(foo :x 1 :a 2)
=
I would really love to see (clearly by someone much smarter than I :)
an insightful summary of these kinds of concept-heavy discussions,
stickied or FAQd or even book'd somewhere.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group,
On Apr 6, 7:03 pm, ataggart alex.tagg...@gmail.com wrote:
See:
http://richhickey.github.com/clojure-contrib/def-api.html#clojure.con...
Ah, thank you (all).
Will this be in 1.2? Is run-time cost expected to be minor, and will
passing unrecognized keys be an error?
--
You received this
On Apr 7, 7:56 am, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
The runtime cost of destructuring is not worth getting worked up
about. It's easy to check this yourself with (time ...)
Results below:
user= (defn fk [ {:keys [a b c]}] (+ a b c))
user= (defn fp [a b c] (+ a b c))
user= (time
On Apr 7, 12:37 pm, Armando Blancas armando_blan...@yahoo.com wrote:
in other languages they'd be annotations and maybe perceived
as redundant, e.g. a call like: (circle x y radius) is readable
Ah, but what about:
(circle year population income)
vs.
(circle :x year :y population :r income)
In
On Apr 8, 11:08 am, David Nolen dnolen.li...@gmail.com wrote:
In my own code I only avoid the convenience of destructuring in the
rare tight loops such as calculations intended to drive animations.
But when you write a function you would have to decide positional vs.
keyword. Would you then
(deftype A [x]) gives me an accessor (:x anA)
Then I decide to change data representation of A without impacting
client code, but I don't seem able to define a function
(defn :x [anA] ...)
Should I be doing something different?
Thanks!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
I see downloads named
- Java SE (45MB)
- Java FX (76MB)
- Java (146MB) - apparently includes Sun Glassfish Server what-not
I'm using OSX 10.5.8, and just want to install the easiest Netbeans
(with Enclojure) to for development with Compojure.
Would I use Compojure with Jetty? Apache
I had trouble with Enclojure 1.1.1
What worked for me: uninstall it and follow the Netbeans section at
http://github.com/relevance/labrepl
--
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
On Apr 29, 3:21 am, ataggart alex.tagg...@gmail.com wrote:
Functions named contains-key? and contains-val? would make a lot more
sense to me than the current contains? and new seq-contains?.
Amen. Even independent of any performance expectations.
--
You received this message because you are
25 matches
Mail list logo
