Destructure and process vector of hash-maps in Clojure - vector

I have a vector of hash-maps, like this:
(def my-maps [{:a 1} {:b 2}])
I want to loop over each hash-map, give the key and value a more meaningful name within the loop, then process each hash-map differently depending on its key.
Without further ado, here is my best attempt:
(for [m my-maps]
(let [my-key-name (key m) my-val-name (val m)]
(case my-key-name
:a (println "Found key :a with value " my-val-name)
:b (println "Found key :b with value " my-val-name))))
This approach, however, produces a rather cryptic error:
; Error printing return value (ClassCastException) at clojure.core/key (core.clj:1569).
; class clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap cannot be cast to class java.util.Map$Entry (clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap is in unnamed module of loader 'app'; java.util.Map$Entry is in module java.base of loader 'bootstrap')
What am I doing wrong?

You can destructure inside for (or use doseq):
(for [[[k v] & _] [{:a 1} {:b 2}]]
(println "Found key" k "with value" v))
Found key :a with value 1
Found key :b with value 2
=> (nil nil)

For the sake of clarity, here is a more general answer broken down into individual steps:
(let [my-maps [{:a 1} {:b 2 :c 3}]]
(doseq [curr-map my-maps]
(newline)
(println "curr-map=" curr-map)
(let [map-entries (seq curr-map)]
(println "map-entries=" map-entries)
(doseq [curr-me map-entries]
(let [[k v] curr-me]
(println " curr-me=" curr-me " k=" k " v=" v))))))
With result
curr-map= {:a 1}
map-entries= ([:a 1])
curr-me= [:a 1] k= :a v= 1
curr-map= {:b 2, :c 3}
map-entries= ([:b 2] [:c 3])
curr-me= [:b 2] k= :b v= 2
curr-me= [:c 3] k= :c v= 3
A MapEntry object in Clojure can be treated as either a 2-element vector (accessed via first & second) or as a MapEntry accessed via the key and val functions. The destructuring form:
(let [[k v] curr-me]
treats the MapEntry object curr-me as a sequence and pulls out the first 2 elements into k and v. Even though it prints like a vector (eg [:a 1]), it does have the type clojure.lang.MapEntry.
The destructuring syntax & _ in the for expression of the original answer is a "rest args" destructuring. It causes the sequence of all MapEntry objects after the first one to be assigned to the variable _, which is then ignored in the rest of the code.

Related

Clojure : Passing values of variable to macros

I want to convert {a 1, b 2} clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap into
[a 1 b 2] clojure.lang.PersistentVector in clojure.
I have tried to write a function in clojure which converts {a 1, b 2} into [a 1 b 2]. I have also written a macro which gives me expected end result. In clojure we cannot pass the values generated inside functions to macros. For that I wanted to know a way in which I can implement a macro directly which can convert {a 1, b 2} into (let [a 1 b 2] (println a)), which will return 1.
Dummy Macro:
(defmacro mymacro [binding & body]
--some implemetation---)
Execution :
(mymacro '{a 1, b 2} (println a))
output:
1
nil
My Implementaion:
Function which converts into desired output.
(defn myfn [x]
(let [a (into (vector) x) b (vec (mapcat vec a))] b))
Execution:
(myfn '{a 1, b 2})
Output:
[a 1 b 2]
MACRO:
(defmacro list-let [bindings & body] `(let ~(vec bindings) ~#body))
Execution:
(list-let [a 1 b 2] (println a))
Output:
1
nil
I wanted to know how can I implement the same inside the macro itself and avoid the function implementation to get the require output. Something same as dummy macro given above. I am also interested in knowing if there is any which through which I can pass the value from my funtion to the macro without using
(def)
in general, macro code is plain clojure code (with the difference that it returns clojure code to be evaluated later). So, almost anything you can think of coding in clojure, you can do inside macro to the arguments passed.
for example, here is the thing you're trying to do (if i understood you correctly):
(defmacro map-let [binding-map & body]
(let [b-vec (reduce into [] binding-map)]
`(let ~b-vec ~#body)))
(map-let {a 10 b 20}
(println a b)
(+ a b))
;;=> 10 20
30
or like this:
(defmacro map-let [binding-map & body]
`(let ~(reduce into [] binding-map) ~#body))
or even like this:
(defmacro map-let [binding-map & body]
`(let [~#(apply concat binding-map)] ~#body))
You don't need a macro for this, and you should always prefer functions over macros when possible.
For your particular case, I have already written a function keyvals which you may find handy:
(keyvals m)
"For any map m, returns the keys & values of m as a vector,
suitable for reconstructing via (apply hash-map (keyvals m))."
(keyvals {:a 1 :b 2})
;=> [:b 2 :a 1]
(apply hash-map (keyvals {:a 1 :b 2}))
;=> {:b 2, :a 1}
And, here are the full API docs.
If you are curious about the implementation, it is very simple:
(s/defn keyvals :- [s/Any]
"For any map m, returns the (alternating) keys & values of m as a vector, suitable for reconstructing m via
(apply hash-map (keyvals m)). (keyvals {:a 1 :b 2} => [:a 1 :b 2] "
[m :- tsk/Map ]
(reduce into [] (seq m)))

clojure - (Another one) StackOverflow with loop/recur

I know this is a recurring question (here, here, and more), and I know that the problem is related to creating lazy sequencies, but I can't see why it fails.
The problem: I had written a (not very nice) quicksort algorithm to sort strings that uses loop/recur. But applied to 10000 elements, I get a StackOverflowError:
(defn qsort [list]
(loop [[current & todo :as all] [list] sorted []]
(cond
(nil? current) sorted
(or (nil? (seq current)) (= (count current) 1)) (recur todo (concat sorted current))
:else (let [[pivot & rest] current
pred #(> (compare pivot %) 0)
lt (filter pred rest)
gte (remove pred rest)
work (list* lt [pivot] gte todo)]
(recur work sorted)))))
I used in this way:
(defn tlfnum [] (str/join (repeatedly 10 #(rand-int 10))))
(defn tlfbook [n] (repeatedly n #(tlfnum)))
(time (count (qsort (tlfbook 10000))))
And this is part of the stack trace:
[clojure.lang.LazySeq seq "LazySeq.java" 49]
[clojure.lang.RT seq "RT.java" 521]
[clojure.core$seq__4357 invokeStatic "core.clj" 137]
[clojure.core$concat$fn__4446 invoke "core.clj" 706]
[clojure.lang.LazySeq sval "LazySeq.java" 40]
[clojure.lang.LazySeq seq "LazySeq.java" 49]
[clojure.lang.RT seq "RT.java" 521]
[clojure.core$seq__4357 invokeStatic "core.clj" 137]]}
As far as I know, loop/recur performs tail call optimization, so no stack is used (is, in fact, an iterative process written using recursive syntax).
Reading other answers, and because of the stack trace, I see there's a problem with concat and adding a doall before concat solves the stack overflow problem. But... why?
Here's part of the code for the two-arity version of concat.
(defn concat [x y]
(lazy-seq
(let [s (seq x)]
,,,))
)
Notice that it uses two other functions, lazy-seq, and seq. lazy-seq is a bit like a lambda, it wraps some code without executing it yet. The code inside the lazy-seq block has to result in some kind of sequence value. When you call any sequence operation on the lazy-seq, then it will first evaluate the code ("realize" the lazy seq), and then perform the operation on the result.
(def lz (lazy-seq
(println "Realizing!")
'(1 2 3)))
(first lz)
;; prints "realizing"
;; => 1
Now try this:
(defn lazy-conj [xs x]
(lazy-seq
(println "Realizing" x)
(conj (seq xs) x)))
Notice that it's similar to concat, it calls seq on its first argument, and returns a lazy-seq
(def up-to-hundred
(reduce lazy-conj () (range 100)))
(first up-to-hundred)
;; prints "Realizing 99"
;; prints "Realizing 98"
;; prints "Realizing 97"
;; ...
;; => 99
Even though you asked for only the first element, it still ended up realizing the whole sequence. That's because realizing the outer "layer" results in calling seq on the next "layer", which realizes another lazy-seq, which again calls seq, etc. So it's a chain reaction that realizes everything, and each step consumes a stack frame.
(def up-to-ten-thousand
(reduce lazy-conj () (range 10000)))
(first up-to-ten-thousand)
;;=> java.lang.StackOverflowError
You get the same problem when stacking concat calls. That's why for instance (reduce concat ,,,) is always a smell, instead you can use (apply concat ,,,) or (into () cat ,,,).
Other lazy operators like filter and map can exhibit the exact same problem. If you really have a lot of transformation steps over a sequence consider using transducers instead.
;; without transducers: many intermediate lazy seqs and deep call stacks
(->> my-seq
(map foo)
(filter bar)
(map baz)
,,,)
;; with transducers: seq processed in a single pass
(sequence (comp
(map foo)
(filter bar)
(map baz))
my-seq)
Arne had a good answer (and, in fact, I'd never noticed cat before!). If you want a simpler solution, you can use the glue function from the Tupelo library:
Gluing Together Like Collections
The concat function can sometimes have rather surprising results:
(concat {:a 1} {:b 2} {:c 3} )
;=> ( [:a 1] [:b 2] [:c 3] )
In this example, the user probably meant to merge the 3 maps into one. Instead, the three maps were mysteriously converted into length-2 vectors, which were then nested inside another sequence.
The conj function can also surprise the user:
(conj [1 2] [3 4] )
;=> [1 2 [3 4] ]
Here the user probably wanted to get [1 2 3 4] back, but instead got a nested vector by mistake.
Instead of having to wonder if the items to be combined will be merged, nested, or converted into another data type, we provide the glue function to always combine like collections together into a result collection of the same type:
; Glue together like collections:
(is (= (glue [ 1 2] '(3 4) [ 5 6] ) [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] )) ; all sequential (vectors & lists)
(is (= (glue {:a 1} {:b 2} {:c 3} ) {:a 1 :c 3 :b 2} )) ; all maps
(is (= (glue #{1 2} #{3 4} #{6 5} ) #{ 1 2 6 5 3 4 } )) ; all sets
(is (= (glue "I" " like " \a " nap!" ) "I like a nap!" )) ; all text (strings & chars)
; If you want to convert to a sorted set or map, just put an empty one first:
(is (= (glue (sorted-map) {:a 1} {:b 2} {:c 3}) {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3} ))
(is (= (glue (sorted-set) #{1 2} #{3 4} #{6 5}) #{ 1 2 3 4 5 6 } ))
An Exception will be thrown if the collections to be 'glued' are not all of the same type. The allowable input types are:
all sequential: any mix of lists & vectors (vector result)
all maps (sorted or not)
all sets (sorted or not)
all text: any mix of strings & characters (string result)
I put glue into your code instead of concat and still got a StackOverflowError. So, I also replaced the lazy filter and remove with eager versions keep-if and drop-if to get this result:
(defn qsort [list]
(loop [[current & todo :as all] [list] sorted []]
(cond
(nil? current) sorted
(or (nil? (seq current)) (= (count current) 1))
(recur todo (glue sorted current))
:else (let [[pivot & rest] current
pred #(> (compare pivot %) 0)
lt (keep-if pred rest)
gte (drop-if pred rest)
work (list* lt [pivot] gte todo)]
(recur work sorted)))))
(defn tlfnum [] (str/join (repeatedly 10 #(rand-int 10))))
(defn tlfbook [n] (repeatedly n #(tlfnum)))
(def result
(time (count (qsort (tlfbook 10000)))))
-------------------------------------
Clojure 1.8.0 Java 1.8.0_111
-------------------------------------
"Elapsed time: 1377.321118 msecs"
result => 10000

Clojure - walk with path

I am looking for a function similar to those in clojure.walk that have an inner function that takes as argument :
not a key and a value, as is the case with the clojure.walk/walk function
but the vector of keys necessary to access a value from the top-level data structure.
recursively traverses all data
Example :
;; not good since it takes `[k v]` as argument instead of `[path v]`, and is not recursive.
user=> (clojure.walk/walk (fn [[k v]] [k (* 10 v)]) identity {:a 1 :b {:c 2}})
;; {:a 10, :c 30, :b 20}
;; it should receive as arguments instead :
[[:a] 1]
[[:b :c] 2]
Note:
It should work with arrays too, using the keys 0, 1, 2... (just like in get-in).
I don't really care about the outer parameter, if that allows to simplify the code.
Currently learning clojure, I tried this as an exercise.
I however found it quite tricky to implement it directly as a walk down the tree that applies the inner function as it goes.
To achieve the result you are looking for, I split the task in 2:
First transform the nested structure into a dictionary with the path as key, and the value,
Then map the inner function over, or reduce with the outer function.
My implementation:
;; Helper function to have vector's indexes work like for get-in
(defn- to-indexed-seqs [coll]
(if (map? coll)
coll
(map vector (range) coll)))
;; Flattening the tree to a dict of (path, value) pairs that I can map over
;; user> (flatten-path [] {:a {:k1 1 :k2 2} :b [1 2 3]})
;; {[:a :k1] 1, [:a :k2] 2, [:b 0] 1, [:b 1] 2, [:b 2] 3}
(defn- flatten-path [path step]
(if (coll? step)
(->> step
to-indexed-seqs
(map (fn [[k v]] (flatten-path (conj path k) v)))
(into {}))
[path step]))
;; Some final glue
(defn path-walk [f coll]
(->> coll
(flatten-path [])
(map #(apply f %))))
;; user> (println (clojure.string/join "\n" (path-walk #(str %1 " - " %2) {:a {:k1 1 :k2 2} :b [1 2 3]})))
;; [:a :k1] - 1
;; [:a :k2] - 2
;; [:b 0] - 1
;; [:b 1] - 2
;; [:b 2] - 3
It turns out that Stuart Halloway published a gist that could be of some use (it uses a protocol, which makes it extensible as well) :
(ns user)
(def app
"Intenal Helper"
(fnil conj []))
(defprotocol PathSeq
(path-seq* [form path] "Helper for path-seq"))
(extend-protocol PathSeq
java.util.List
(path-seq*
[form path]
(->> (map-indexed
(fn [idx item]
(path-seq* item (app path idx)))
form)
(mapcat identity)))
java.util.Map
(path-seq*
[form path]
(->> (map
(fn [[k v]]
(path-seq* v (app path k)))
form)
(mapcat identity)))
java.util.Set
(path-seq*
[form path]
(->> (map
(fn [v]
(path-seq* v (app path v)))
form)
(mapcat identity)))
java.lang.Object
(path-seq* [form path] [[form path]])
nil
(path-seq* [_ path] [[nil path]]))
(defn path-seq
"Returns a sequence of paths into a form, and the elements found at
those paths. Each item in the sequence is a map with :path
and :form keys. Paths are built based on collection type: lists
by position, maps by key, and sets by value, e.g.
(path-seq [:a [:b :c] {:d :e} #{:f}])
({:path [0], :form :a}
{:path [1 0], :form :b}
{:path [1 1], :form :c}
{:path [2 :d], :form :e}
{:path [3 :f], :form :f})
"
[form]
(map
#(let [[form path] %]
{:path path :form form})
(path-seq* form nil)))
(comment
(path-seq [:a [:b :c] {:d :e} #{:f}])
;; finding nils hiding in data structures:
(->> (path-seq [:a [:b nil] {:d :e} #{:f}])
(filter (comp nil? :form)))
;; finding a nil hiding in a Datomic transaction
(->> (path-seq {:db/id 100
:friends [{:firstName "John"}
{:firstName nil}]})
(filter (comp nil? :form)))
)
Note : in my case I could also have used Specter, so if you are reading this, you may want to check it out as well.
There is also https://github.com/levand/contextual/
(def node (:b (first (root :a))))
(= node {:c 1}) ;; => true
(c/context node) ;; => [:a 0 :b]

Is there an idiomatic way to find matching key and value in map in Clojure?

I'm trying to find matching key and value pairs from a map. I'm using the following code:
(defn matches? [m k v]
(let [val (k m)]
(= val v)))
my-demo.core=> (matches? {:a 1 :b 2} :b 2)
true
my-demo.core=> (matches? {:a 1 :b 2} :b 3)
false
Another approach using superset?:
my-demo.core=> (superset? #{:a 1 :b 3} #{:a 1})
true
my-demo.core=> (superset? #{:a 1 :b 3} #{:a 2})
false
I have a feeling there is a better way to do this.
My question is: Is there an idiomatic way to find matching key and value in map in Clojure?
This is probably a small enough problem that you could just use this instead of defining a function:
(= ({:a 1 :b 2} :a)
1)
=> true
I would say this is an idiomatic way, which will work fine for most use cases.
However, it depends on the behaviour you require when testing for a nil value. because the above method would return true for :c nil:
(= ({:a 1 :b 2} :c)
nil)
=> true
And your function behaves the same way:
(matches? {:a 1 :b 2} :c nil)
=> true
To get around this you could use get with a "not found" value:
(= (get {:a 1 :b 2} :c ::not-found)
nil)
=> false
This works fine but it's perhaps not as neat. You'd just have to make sure that your "not found" value was never the same as your test value.
If you wanted to really know that a map contains a key with a possibly nil value you would instead have to check both things. Here's a function that would do this while only doing the hash-map lookup once. It uses (find map key) which returns the map entry (the key-value pair) for key, or nil if the key is not present.
(defn contains-kv? [m k v]
(if-let [kv (find m k)]
(= (val kv) v)
false))
(contains-kv? {:a 1 :b nil} :a 1)
=> true
(contains-kv? {:a 1 :b nil} :b nil)
=> true
(contains-kv? {:a 1 :b nil} :c nil)
=> false
Note: I don't think superset? is doing what you think it does. In that example you're using sets, not hash maps, which are completely different:
(clojure.set/superset? #{:a 1 :b 2} #{:a :b})
=> true
Your matches? function looks good to me, though I'd probably remove the let in this case, as it removes a bit of clutter. I'd also rename it to something more precise, though this is the best I can come up with just now:
(defn contains-kv?
"Returns true if the key k is present in the given map m and it's value matches v."
[m k v]
(= (m k) v))

How do I map a vector to a map, pushing into it repeated key values?

This is my input data:
[[:a 1 2] [:a 3 4] [:a 5 6] [:b \a \b] [:b \c \d] [:b \e \f]]
I would like to map this into the following:
{:a [[1 2] [3 4] [5 6]] :b [[\a \b] [\c \d] [\e \f]]}
This is what I have so far:
(defn- build-annotation-map [annotation & m]
(let [gff (first annotation)
remaining (rest annotation)
seqname (first gff)
current {seqname [(nth gff 3) (nth gff 4)]}]
(if (not (seq remaining))
m
(let [new-m (merge-maps current m)]
(apply build-annotation-map remaining new-m)))))
(defn- merge-maps [m & ms]
(apply merge-with conj
(when (first ms)
(reduce conj ;this is to avoid [1 2 [3 4 ... etc.
(map (fn [k] {k []}) (keys m))))
m ms))
The above produces:
{:a [[1 2] [[3 4] [5 6]]] :b [[\a \b] [[\c \d] [\e \f]]]}
It seems clear to me that the problem is in merge-maps, specifically with the function passed to merge-with (conj), but after banging my head for a while now, I'm about ready for someone to help me out.
I'm new to lisp in general, and clojure in particular, so I also appreciate comments not specifically addressing the problem, but also style, brain-dead constructs on my part, etc. Thanks!
Solution (close enough, anyway):
(group-by first [[:a 1 2] [:a 3 4] [:a 5 6] [:b \a \b] [:b \c \d] [:b \e \f]])
=> {:a [[:a 1 2] [:a 3 4] [:a 5 6]], :b [[:b \a \b] [:b \c \d] [:b \e \f]]}
(defn build-annotations [coll]
(reduce (fn [m [k & vs]]
(assoc m k (conj (m k []) (vec vs))))
{} coll))
Concerning your code, the most significant problem is naming. Firstly, I wouldn't, especially without first understanding your code, have any idea what is meant by annotation, gff, and seqname. current is pretty ambiguous too. In Clojure, remaining would generally be called more, depending on the context, and whether a more specific name should be used.
Within your let statement, gff (first annotation)
remaining (rest annotation), I'd probably take advantage of destructuring, like this:
(let [[first & more] annotation] ...)
If you would rather use (rest annotation) then I'd suggest using next instead, as it will return nil if it's empty, and allow you to write (if-not remaining ...) rather than (if-not (seq remaining) ...).
user> (next [])
nil
user> (rest [])
()
In Clojure, unlike other lisps, the empty list is truthy.
This article shows the standard for idiomatic naming.
Works at least on the given data set.
(defn build-annotations [coll]
(reduce
(fn [result vec]
(let [key (first vec)
val (subvec vec 1)
old-val (get result key [])
conjoined-val (conj old-val val)]
(assoc
result
key
conjoined-val)))
{}
coll))
(build-annotations [[:a 1 2] [:a 3 4] [:a 5 6] [:b \a \b] [:b \c \d] [:b \e \f]])
I am sorry for not offering improvements on your code. I am just learning Clojure and it is easier to solve problems piece by piece instead of understanding a bigger piece of code and finding the problems in it.
Although I have no comments to your code yet, I tried it for my own and came up with this solution:
(defn build-annotations [coll]
(let [anmap (group-by first coll)]
(zipmap (keys anmap) (map #(vec (map (comp vec rest) %)) (vals anmap)))))
Here's my entry leveraging group-by, although several steps in here are really concerned with returning vectors rather than lists. If you drop that requirement, it gets a bit simpler:
(defn f [s]
(let [g (group-by first s)
k (keys g)
v (vals g)
cleaned-v (for [group v]
(into [] (map (comp #(into [] %) rest) group)))]
(zipmap k cleaned-v)))
Depending what you actually want, you might even be able to get by with just doing group-by.
(defn build-annotations [coll]
(apply merge-with concat
(map (fn [[k & vals]] {k [vals]})
coll))
So,
(map (fn [[k & vals]] {k [vals]})
coll))
takes a collection of [keys & values] and returns a list of {key [values]}
(apply merge-with concat ...list of maps...)
takes a list of maps, merges them together, and concats the values if a key already exists.

Resources