Am Do., 17. Jan. 2019 um 00:52 Uhr schrieb Herwig Hochleitner <
hhochleit...@gmail.com>:
> 5. I could attach table like descriptions to each Record object (be it in
>> its metadata or else), but then enforcing that all Records share the same
>> Table data could get penalizing at runtime.
>>
>
>
Am Di., 15. Jan. 2019 um 14:58 Uhr schrieb :
>
> Imagine I try on the one side to represent something like a database table
> in memory, while on the other to make it pluggable into all meaningful
> sequence and vector/map functions in Clojure. In the most naive
> implementation a table is a
P.S. Actually it just a coincidence that in my use case I am not concerned
with let say trees, but with "Records" in a "Table", which in contrast map
somehow nicely to IPersistentMap (where I can put a lot of additional
functionality in a transparent way) and a "Table" (where the sequence
Thanks for explaining Plamen. Yes, it seems very difficult to treat a
database abstraction as a regular Clojure map/vector. FWIW, in writing an
app I think it works well to use SQL queries to return ordinary
maps/vectors which can then be manipulated as usual. But I think you are
doing
Hello Mark
the reason was that I want them to act as if they are maps and vectors for
an end user developer and let him work with all the usual Clojure functions
for these data structures, while internally they would have some different
implementation and additional functionality (for
Hi Plamen, I don't have any advice to offer but I'm curious why you want to
bind the table and column type info directly onto the result set. If you
associate them in some other way, then you can just use plain maps and
vectors. Are you trying to have less total objects in your API?
--
You
Hello James
Yes. The (into (empty table) (comp (filter process?) (map process)) table)
was exactly what I wanted for an end user to avoid to have to write, but
just a (filter ... table), otherwise I could provide a wrapper like (defn
myfilter [pred table] (into (empty table) (comp (filter
Hello Alex
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 3:19:05 PM UTC+1, Alex Miller wrote:
>
> Well first, there is a conscious split between collection and sequence
> functions. Collection functions take a collection and return the same
> collection (and take the collection first) - things like conj,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 13:58, wrote:
> So - do I miss something either in my knowledge or in the Clojure's
> documentation/implementation and is there a meaningful way to apply
> Clojure's and not mine filter/map/take/drop/sort etc. functions on a Table
> and to get a Table back, without going
Well first, there is a conscious split between collection and sequence
functions. Collection functions take a collection and return the same
collection (and take the collection first) - things like conj, assoc,
dissoc, disj, etc. Those functions are all trait-based and "update"
operations are
P.S. This is a question about clarification/advice, not a critique to
Clojure, as it actually works as advertised :)
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 2:58:07 PM UTC+1, plamen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hello all
>
> while working on a daily basis where I use Clojure's native vectors/maps I
> almost
Hello all
while working on a daily basis where I use Clojure's native vectors/maps I
almost never experience the problem and even if - it is easy fixable with
something like (into [] ...), I have the following problem with custom data
structures and ask here for clarification if my
12 matches
Mail list logo
