The first usage of :as shown in Clojure Programming is the following
(let [[x _ z :as original-vector] v]
(conj original-vector (+ x z)))
;= [42 foo 99.2 [5 12] 141.2]
However, by experimenting a bit on https://rextester.com/l/clojure_online_compiler, I see that v is visible in the body of let, so I can just skip the :as destructuring and use v instead of original-vector, and the result is the same
(let [[x _ z] v]
(conj v (+ x z)))
;= [42 foo 99.2 [5 12] 141.2]
This is clearly not doable if I have a more complex expression instead of v (in C++ I'd say a temporary/rvalue, whereas v would be an lvalue).
So my question is: is the :as syntax useful only when we destructure a temporary, whereas it is totally redundant when we destructure a named entity? I mean in the example above it seems the only difference in using :as is that we refer to v via another name, but I don't see how this can be advantageous in any way...
The example assumes
(def v [42 "foo" 99.2 [5 12]])
You are correct that the :as destructuring technique can be redundant. However, :as in a destructuring form is almost always used with a function's argument vector, rather than with a let form:
(ns tst.demo.core
(:use tupelo.core tupelo.test))
(defn myfun
[[x _ z :as original-vector]]
(conj original-vector (+ x z)))
(dotest
(is= [1 2 3 4]
(myfun [1 2 3])))
However, it is well worth noting that the full power of destructuring
is available for both function arguments and let forms.
The example is built using my favorite template project.
Related
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)))
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
I'm a bit lost with usage of transients in clojure. Any help will be appreciated.
The sample code:
(defn test-transient [v]
(let [b (transient [])]
(for [x v] (conj! b x))
(persistent! b)))
user> (test-transient [1 2 3])
[]
I tried to make it persistent before return and the result is:
(defn test-transient2 [v]
(let [b (transient [])]
(for [x v] (conj! b x))
(persistent! b)
b))
user> (test-transient2 [1 2 3])
#<TransientVector clojure.lang.PersistentVector$TransientVector#1dfde20>
But if I use conj! separately it seems work ok:
(defn test-transient3 [v]
(let [b (transient [])]
(conj! b 0)
(conj! b 1)
(conj! b 2)
(persistent! b)))
user> (test-transient3 [1 2 3])
[0 1 2]
Does for has some constraint? If so, how can i copy values from persistent vector to transient?
Thank you.
Transients aren't supposed to be bashed in-place like that. Your last example only works due to implementation details which you shouldn't rely on.
The reason why for doesn't work is that it is lazy and the conj! calls are never executed, but that is besides the point, as you shouldn't work with transients that way anyway.
You should use conj! the same way as you would use the "regular" conj with immutable vectors - by using the return value.
What you are trying to do could be accomplished like this:
(defn test-transient [v]
(let [t (transient [])]
(persistent! (reduce conj! t v))))
I'm looking for a way how to use map function in more custom way. If there is a different function for what I'm trying to achieve, could you please let me know this.
;lets say i have addOneToEach function working as bellow
(defn plusOne[singleInt]
(+ 1 singleInt))
(defn addOneToEach[intCollection] ;[1 2 3 4]
(map plusOne intCollection)) ;=>(2 3 4 5)
;But in a case I would want to customly define how much to add
(defn plusX[singleInt x]
(+ x singleInt))
(defn addXToEach[intCollection x] ;[1 2 3 4]
;how do I use plusX here inside map function?
(map (plusX ?x?) intCollection)) ;=>((+ 1 x) (+ 2 x) (+ 3 x) (+ 4 x))
I'm not looking for a function that adds x to each in the collection, but a way to pass extra arguments to the function that map is using.
another option to the already mentioned would be partial (note that in the example the order of the params does not matter, since you just add them, but partial binds them from left to right, so beware):
user=> (doc partial)
-------------------------
clojure.core/partial
([f] [f arg1] [f arg1 arg2] [f arg1 arg2 arg3] [f arg1 arg2 arg3 & more])
Takes a function f and fewer than the normal arguments to f, and
returns a fn that takes a variable number of additional args. When
called, the returned function calls f with args + additional args.
nil
user=> (defn plus-x [x i] (+ x i))
#'user/plus-x
user=> (map (partial plus-x 5) [1 2 3])
(6 7 8)
There are several ways to go about it. One is using an explicit local function via letfn:
(defn add-x-to-each [ints x]
(letfn [(plus-x [i]
(+ i x))]
(map plus-x ints)))
For this small piece of code this is probably overkill and you can simply streamline it via an anonymous function:
(defn add-x-to-each [ints x]
(map #(+ % x) ints))
Both of these solutions basically apply the use of a closure which is an important concept to know: it boils down to defining a function dynamically which refers to a variable in the environment at the time the function was defined. Here we defer the creation of plus-x (or the anonymous) function until x is bound, so plus-x can refer to whatever value is passed in to add-x-to-each.
You almost got it right.
There are several possible ways:
1.
(defn addXToEach[intCollection x]
(map #(plusX % x) intCollection))
#(%) means same as (fn [x] (x)) (be aware that x is being evaluated here).
2.
(defn addXToEach[intCollection x]
(map (fn [item] (plusX item x)) intCollection))
3.
(defn addXToEach[intCollection x]
(map #(+ % x) intCollection))
and then you don't have to define your plusX function.
Hope it helps!
You are applying map to one collection, so the function that map applies must take one argument. The question is, how is this function to be composed?
The function
(defn plusOne [singleInt]
(+ 1 singleInt))
... works. It is otherwise known as inc.
But the function
(defn plusX [singleInt x]
(+ x singleInt))
... doesn't work, because it takes two arguments. Given a number x, you want to return a function that adds x to its argument:
(defn plusX [x]
(fn [singleInt] (+ x singleInt))
You can use a function returned by plusX in the map.
It is when you compose such a function that you can use extra arguments. This kind of function, composed as an expression involving captured data, is called a closure.
For example, (plusX 3) is a function that adds 3 to its argument.
(map (plusX 3) stuff)
;(4 5 6 7)
As you see, you don't need to name your closure.
Specifically for + the following will also work:
(map + (repeat 4) [3 4 9 0 2 8 1]) ;=> (7 8 13 4 6 12 5)
Of course, instead '4' put your number, or wrap with (let [x 4] ...) as suggested above.
It might not be the most performant, although, I guess.
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.