Hi l have 2 maps like these (with the possibility of having multiple maps)
(def map1 {:a {:b 1} :c ["dog"]})
(def map2 {:a {:b 2} :c ["cat"]})
l need to have this as a return {:a {:b 3} :c ["dog" "cat"]}
How can l do this?
Solution using generic functions
You could use generic functions - let's call it here o+ (operator +) - by making use of Clojure's multiple dispatch ability. By multiple dispatch you avoid if - else or cond clauses - for distinguishing the argument types/classes - thereby the code stays extensible (further cases can be added without having to change existing code). The function at the end of the defmulti definition is the dispatch function. In the defmethod form - right before the actual function arguments list (vector), you list the dispatch case for which then Clojure looks when deciding which method to use.
(defmulti o+ (fn [& args] (mapv class args)))
(defmethod o+ [Number Number] [x y] (+ x y)) ;; Numbers get added
(defmethod o+ [clojure.lang.PersistentVector clojure.lang.PersistentVector]
[x y] (into (empty x) (concat x y))) ;; Vectors concatentated
(defmethod o+ [clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap]
[x y] (merge-with o+ x y)) ;; Maps merged-with #'o+ (recursive definition!)
Test
You can fuse then two maps with the (now recursively defined) o+ operator:
(def map1 {:a {:b 1} :c ["dog"]})
(def map2 {:a {:b 2} :c ["cat"]})
(o+ map1 map2) ;; or originally: (merge-with o+ map1 map2)
;; => {:a {:b 3}, :c ["dog" "cat"]}
Even deeper nested maps are covered
Due to the recursive character of this definition - this works also with more deeply nested maps as long as they have the same structure - and use only the defined class cases (otherwise one could add further cases):
(def mapA {:a {:b 2 :c {:d 1 :e ["a"] :f 3}} :g ["b"]})
(def mapB {:a {:b 3 :c {:d 4 :e ["b" "e"] :f 5}} :g ["c"]})
(o+ mapA mapB)
;;=> {:a {:b 5, :c {:d 5, :e ["a" "b" "e"], :f 8}}, :g ["b" "c"]}
Use reduce to add more maps at once
And as long as you can apply o+ on two objects, you can process an arbitrary number of maps using reduce:
(def mapA {:a {:b 2 :c {:d 1 :e ["a"] :f 3}} :g ["b"]})
(def mapB {:a {:b 3 :c {:d 4 :e ["b" "e"] :f 5}} :g ["c"]})
(def mapC {:a {:b 1 :c {:d 3 :e ["c"] :f 1}} :g ["a"]})
(reduce o+ [mapA mapB mapC]) ;; this vector could contain much more maps!
;; => {:a {:b 6, :c {:d 8, :e ["a" "b" "e" "c"], :f 9}}, :g ["b" "c" "a"]}
;; or we could define in addition:
(defmethod o+ :default [& args] (reduce o+ args))
;; which makes `o+` to a variadic function (function which can be
;; called with as many arguments you want)
;; then, whenever we add more than two arguments, it will be activated:
(o+ mapA mapB mapC)
;; => {:a {:b 6, :c {:d 8, :e ["a" "b" "e" "c"], :f 9}}, :g ["b" "c" "a"]}
;; and this also works:
(o+ 1 2 3 4 5 6)
;; => 21
(o+ ["a"] ["b" "c"] ["d"])
;; => ["a" "b" "c" "d"]
You can use merge-with with a custom function to resolve conflicts when merging maps.
(defn my-merge [a b]
(merge-with (fn [a b]
(if (map? a)
(merge-with + a b)
(into a b)))
a b))
Or defined recursively:
(defn my-merge [a b]
(cond (vector? a) (into a b)
(number? a) (+ a b)
(map? a) (merge-with my-merge a b)
:else (throw (ex-info "Unsupported values" {:values [a b]}))))
Here's an idea. I didn't test this, and I'm quite sure a more clever solution will come... especially now that I said that this is an answer (the someone-said-something-wrong-on-the-internet effect) :)
(reduce
(fn [accum item]
(let [b-accum (get-in accum [:a :b])
b-item (get-in item [:a :b])
new-b (+ b-accum b-item)
new-c (vec (concat (:c accum) (:c item))]
{:a {:b new-b} :c new-c}))
[map1 map2])
(require '[net.cgrand.xforms :as x])
(let [map1 {:a {:b 1} :c ["dog"]}
map2 {:a {:b 2} :c ["cat"]}]
(->> [map1 map2]
(into {}
(x/multiplex
{:a (comp (map :a) (map :b) (x/reduce +) (x/into [:b]) (x/into {}))
:c (comp (mapcat :c) (x/reduce conj))}))))
Related
I'm wondering if anyone can help me find the right function to use with merge-with to get the desired merging of map values as a single vector.
Thanks!
; works great -single vector
(merge-with vector {:a "b"} {:a "d"} {:a "c"})
; {:a ["b" "d"]}
; uh-oh... now we are beginning to nest each set
(merge-with vector {:a "b"} {:a "d"} {:a "c"})
;{:a [["b" "d"] "c"]}
; what I want:
; {:a ["b" "d" "c"]}
though the approach with flatten solves your concrete problem, it is not universal. Based on your question i would guess that you need a map of keyword to vector as a result. And it works, when all the maps contain exactly same keys. But guess the following corner cases:
user> (merge-with (comp flatten vector) {:a "b"})
;;=> {:a "b"} oops! you following processing probably wants {:a ["b"]}
user> (merge-with (comp flatten vector) {:a "b"} {:c "d"})
;;=> {:a "b", :c "d"} once again!
user> (merge-with (comp flatten vector) {:a ["b"]} {:a ["c" ["d"]]})
;;=> {:a ("b" "c" "d")}
;; here i can see some inconsistent behavior, breaking the initial data form: would't you rather want {:a [["b"] ["c" ["d"]]]} ?
so, given that you are doing something for production, rather then learning,
i would advice the following approach: you can make the function, merging maps, but also handling the single (or first) key appearing in the result the special way:
(defn smart-merge-with [first-val-fn merge-fn & args]
(when (seq args)
(reduce (fn [acc items-map]
(reduce (fn [acc [k v]]
(if (contains? acc k)
(update acc k merge-fn v)
(assoc acc k (first-val-fn v))))
acc items-map))
{} args)))
now you can just wrap the first value into a vector, and then, when there is another value with the same key appears just add it to that vector:
user> (smart-merge-with vector conj {:a 10 :b 30} {:a 20 :c 30} {:c 1} {:d 100})
;;=> {:a [10 20], :b [30], :c [30 1], :d [100]}
user> (smart-merge-with vector conj {:a [10] :b 30} {:a 20 :c 30} {:c 1} {:d 100})
{:a [[10] 20], :b [30], :c [30 1], :d [100]}
in addition, now you can add more sophisticated logic to the maps' merging, like for example some accumulation:
user> (smart-merge-with (fn [x] {:items [x] :sum x})
(fn [x y] (-> x
(update :items conj y)
(update :sum + y)))
{:a 10 :b 20} {:b 30 :c 40} {:c 1 :d 2})
;;=> {:a {:items [10], :sum 10},
;; :b {:items [20 30], :sum 50},
;; :c {:items [40 1], :sum 41},
;; :d {:items [2], :sum 2}}
From this answer we can use the same principle:
(merge-with (comp #(into [] % ) flatten vector) {:a "b"} {:a "d"} {:a "c"})
{:a ["b" "d" "c"]}
Or roll you own function:
(merge-with #(if (vector? %1) (conj %1 %2) (vector %1 %2)) {:a "b"} {:a "d"} {:a "c"})
Let's say I have a map (m) like this:
(def m {:a 1 :b 2 :c {:d 3 :e 4} :e { ... } ....})
I'd like to create a new map only containing :a, :b and :d from m, i.e. the result should be:
{:a 1 :b 2 :d 3}
I know that I can use select-keys to easily get :a and :b:
(select-keys m [:a :b])
But what's a good way to also get :d? I'm looking for something like this:
(select-keys* m [:a :b [:c :d]])
Does such a function exists in Clojure or what's the recommended approach?
In pure Clojure I would do it like this:
(defn select-keys* [m paths]
(into {} (map (fn [p]
[(last p) (get-in m p)]))
paths))
(select-keys* m [[:a] [:b] [:c :d]]) ;;=> {:a 1, :b 2, :d 3}
I prefer keeping the type of a path regular, so a sequence of keys for all paths. In clojure.spec this would read as
(s/def ::nested-map (s/map-of keyword?
(s/or :num number? :map ::nested-map)))
(s/def ::path (s/coll-of keyword?))
(s/fdef select-keys*
:args (s/cat :m ::nested-map
:paths (s/coll-of ::path)))
As an alternative you can use destructing on a function, for example:
(def m {:a 1 :b 2 :c {:d 3 :e 4}})
(defn get-m
[{a :a b :b {d :d} :c}]
{:a 1 :b b :d d})
(get-m m) ; => {:a 1, :b 2, :d 3}
You can use clojure.walk.
(require '[clojure.walk :as w])
(defn nested-select-keys
[map keyseq]
(w/postwalk (fn [x]
(if (map? x)
(select-keys x keyseq)
(identity x))) map))
(nested-select-keys {:a 1 :b {:c 2 :d 3}} [:a :b :c])
; => {:a 1, :b {:c 2}}
I'm not aware of such a function being part of Clojure. You'll probably have to write it yourself. I've came up with this :
(defn select-keys* [m v]
(reduce
(fn [aggregate next]
(let [key-value (if (vector? next)
[(last next)
(get-in m next)]
[next
(get m next)])]
(apply assoc aggregate key-value)))
{}
v))
Require paths to be vectors so you can use peek (much faster than last). Reduce over the paths like this:
(defn select-keys* [m paths]
(reduce (fn [r p] (assoc r (peek p) (get-in m p))) {} paths))
(select-keys* m [[:a] [:b] [:c :d]]) ;;=> {:a 1, :b 2, :d 3}
Of course, this assumes that all your terminal keys are unique.
In my Clojure webapp I have various model namespaces with functions that take a map as an agrument and somehow insert that map into a database. I would like to be able take out only the desired keys from the map before I do the insert.
A basic example of this is:
(let [msg-keys [:title :body]
msg {:title "Hello" :body "This is an example" :somekey "asdf" :someotherkey "asdf"}]
(select-keys msg msg-keys))
;; => {:title "Hello" :body "This is an example"}
select-keys is not an option when the map is somewhat complex and I would like to select a specific set of nested keys:
(let [person {:name {:first "john" :john "smith"} :age 40 :weight 155 :something {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c" :d "d"}}]
(some-select-key-fn person [:name [:first] :something [:a :b]]))
;; => {:name {:first "john"} :something {:a "a" :b "b"}}
Is there a way to do this with the core functions? Is there a way do this purely with destructuring?
This topic was discussed in the Clojure Google Group along with a few solutions.
Destructuring is probably the closest to a "core" capability, and may be a fine solution if your problem is rather static and the map has all of the expected keys (thus avoiding nil). It could look like:
(let [person {:name {:first "john" :john "smith"} :age 40 :weight 155 :something {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c" :d "d"}}
{{:keys [first]} :name {:keys [a b]} :something} person]
{:name {:first first} :something {:a a :b b}})
;; => {:name {:first "john"}, :something {:a "a", :b "b"}}
Below is a survey of the solutions in the Clojure Google Group thread, applied to your sample map. They each have a different take on how to specify the nested keys to be selected.
Here is Christophe Grand's solution:
(defprotocol Selector
(-select [s m]))
(defn select [m selectors-coll]
(reduce conj {} (map #(-select % m) selectors-coll)))
(extend-protocol Selector
clojure.lang.Keyword
(-select [k m]
(find m k))
clojure.lang.APersistentMap
(-select [sm m]
(into {}
(for [[k s] sm]
[k (select (get m k) s)]))))
Using it requires a slightly modified syntax:
(let [person {:name {:first "john" :john "smith"} :age 40 :weight 155 :something {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c" :d "d"}}]
(select person [{:name [:first] :something [:a :b]}]))
;; => {:something {:b "b", :a "a"}, :name {:first "john"}}
Here is Moritz Ulrich's solution (he cautions that it doesn't work on maps with seqs as keys):
(defn select-in [m keyseq]
(loop [acc {} [k & ks] (seq keyseq)]
(if k
(recur
(if (sequential? k)
(let [[k ks] k]
(assoc acc k
(select-in (get m k) ks)))
(assoc acc k (get m k)))
ks)
acc)))
Using it requires another slightly modified syntax:
(let [person {:name {:first "john" :john "smith"} :age 40 :weight 155 :something {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c" :d "d"}}]
(select-in person [[:name [:first]] [:something [:a :b]]]))
;; => {:something {:b "b", :a "a"}, :name {:first "john"}}
Here is Jay Fields's solution:
(defn select-nested-keys [m top-level-keys & {:as pairs}]
(reduce #(update-in %1 (first %2) select-keys (last %2)) (select-keys m top-level-keys) pairs))
It uses a different syntax:
(let [person {:name {:first "john" :john "smith"} :age 40 :weight 155 :something {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c" :d "d"}}]
(select-nested-keys person [:name :something] [:name] [:first] [:something] [:a :b]))
;; => {:something {:b "b", :a "a"}, :name {:first "john"}}
Here is Baishampayan Ghose's solution:
(defprotocol ^:private IExpandable
(^:private expand [this]))
(extend-protocol IExpandable
clojure.lang.Keyword
(expand [k] {k ::all})
clojure.lang.IPersistentVector
(expand [v] (if (empty? v)
{}
(apply merge (map expand v))))
clojure.lang.IPersistentMap
(expand [m]
(assert (= (count (keys m)) 1) "Number of keys in a selector map can't be more than 1.")
(let [[k v] (-> m first ((juxt key val)))]
{k (expand v)}))
nil
(expand [_] {}))
(defn ^:private extract* [m selectors expand?]
(let [sels (if expand? (expand selectors) selectors)]
(reduce-kv (fn [res k v]
(if (= v ::all)
(assoc res k (m k))
(assoc res k (extract* (m k) v false))))
{} sels)))
(defn extract
"Like select-keys, but can select nested keys.
Examples -
(extract [{:b {:c [:d]}} :g] {:a 1 :b {:c {:d 1 :e 2}} :g 42 :xxx 11})
;=> {:g 42, :b {:c {:d 1}}}
(extract [:g] {:a 1 :b {:c {:d 1 :e 2}} :g 42 :xxx 11})
;=> {:g 42}
(extract [{:b [:c]} :xxx] {:a 1 :b {:c {:d 1 :e 2}} :g 42 :xxx 11})
;=> {:b {:c {:d 1, :e 2}}, :xxx 11}
Also see - exclude"
[selectors m]
(extract* m selectors true))
It uses another syntax (and the parameters are reversed):
(let [person {:name {:first "john" :john "smith"} :age 40 :weight 155 :something {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c" :d "d"}}]
(extract [{:name [:first]} {:something [:a :b]}] person))
;; => {:name {:first "john"}, :something {:a "a", :b "b"}}
Your best bet is probably to use select keys on each nested portion of the structure.
(-> person
(select-keys [:name :something])
(update-in [:name] select-keys [:first])
(update-in [:something] select-keys [:a :b]))
You could of course use a generalized version of the above to implement the syntax you suggest in a function (with a reduce rather than a -> form, most likely, and recursive calls for each nested selection of keys). Destructuring would not help much, it makes binding nested data convenient, but isn't really that useful for constructing values.
Here is how I would do it with reduce and recursion:
(defn simplify
[m skel]
(if-let [kvs (not-empty (partition 2 skel))]
(reduce (fn [m [k nested]]
(if nested
(update-in m [k] simplify nested)
m))
(select-keys m (map first kvs))
kvs)
m))
note that your proposed argument format is inconvenient, so I changed it slightly
user=> (simplify {:name {:first "john" :john "smith"}
:age 40
:weight 155
:something {:a "a" :b "b" :c "c" :d "d"}}
[:name [:first nil] :something [:a nil :b nil]])
{:something {:b "b", :a "a"}, :name {:first "john"}}
the syntax you propose will require a more complex implementation
I am wrapping my head around state in Clojure. I come from languages where state can be mutated. For example, in Python, I can create a dictionary, put some string => integer pairs inside, and then walk over the dictionary and increment the values.
How would I do this in idiomatic Clojure?
(def my-map {:a 1 :b 2})
(zipmap (keys my-map) (map inc (vals my-map)))
;;=> {:b 3, :a 2}
To update only one value by key:
(update-in my-map [:b] inc) ;;=> {:a 1, :b 3}
Since Clojure 1.7 it's also possible to use update:
(update my-map :b inc)
Just produce a new map and use it:
(def m {:a 3 :b 4})
(apply merge
(map (fn [[k v]] {k (inc v) }) m))
; {:b 5, :a 4}
To update multiple values, you could also take advantage of reduce taking an already filled accumulator, and applying a function on that and every member of the following collection.
=> (reduce (fn [a k] (update-in a k inc)) {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3 :d 4} [[:a] [:c]])
{:a 2, :c 4, :b 2, :d 4}
Be aware of the keys needing to be enclosed in vectors, but you can still do multiple update-ins in nested structures like the original update in.
If you made it a generalized function, you could automatically wrap a vector over a key by testing it with coll?:
(defn multi-update-in
[m v f & args]
(reduce
(fn [acc p] (apply
(partial update-in acc (if (coll? p) p (vector p)) f)
args)) m v))
which would allow for single-level/key updates without the need for wrapping the keys in vectors
=> (multi-update-in {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3 :d 4} [:a :c] inc)
{:a 2, :c 4, :b 2, :d 4}
but still be able to do nested updates
(def people
{"keith" {:age 27 :hobby "needlefelting"}
"penelope" {:age 39 :hobby "thaiboxing"}
"brian" {:age 12 :hobby "rocket science"}})
=> (multi-update-in people [["keith" :age] ["brian" :age]] inc)
{"keith" {:age 28, :hobby "needlefelting"},
"penelope" {:age 39, :hobby "thaiboxing"},
"brian" {:age 13, :hobby "rocket science"}}
To slightly improve #Michiel Brokent's answer. This will work if the key already doesn't present.
(update my-map :a #(if (nil? %) 1 (inc %)))
I've been toying with the same idea, so I came up with:
(defn remap
"returns a function which takes a map as argument
and applies f to each value in the map"
[f]
#(into {} (map (fn [[k v]] [k (f v)]) %)))
((remap inc) {:foo 1})
;=> {:foo 2}
or
(def inc-vals (remap inc))
(inc-vals {:foo 1})
;=> {:foo 2}
Is there a cleaner way to do something like the following in clojure?
(defn this [x] (* 2 x))
(defn that [x] (inc x))
(defn the-other [x] (-> x this that))
(defn make-vector [thing]
(let [base (vector (this (:a thing))
(that (:b thing)))]
(if-let [optional (:c thing)]
(conj base (the-other optional))
base)))
(make-vector {:a 1, :b 2}) ;=> [2 3]
(make-vector {:a 1, :b 2, :c 3}) ;=> [2 3 7]
By "cleaner" I mean something closer to this:
(defn non-working-make-vector [thing]
(vector (this (:a thing))
(that (:b thing))
(if (:c thing) (the-other (:c thing)))))
(non-working-make-vector {:a 1, :b 2} ;=> [2 3 nil] no nil, please!
(non-working-make-vector {:a 1, :b 2, :c 3} ;=> [2 3 7]
Note that I might want to call some arbitrary function (e.g. this, that, the-other) on any of the keys in thing and place the result in the returned vector. The important thing is that if the key doesn't exist in the map it should not put a nil in the vector.
This is similar to this question but the output is a vector rather than a map so I can't use merge.
(defn this [x] (* 2 x))
(defn that [x] (inc x))
(defn the-other [x] (-> x this that))
(def k-f-map {:a this
:b that
:c the-other})
(def m1 {:a 1 :b 2})
(def m2 {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3})
(defn make-vector [k-f-map m]
(reduce (fn [res [fk fv]]
(if (fk m)
(conj res (fv (fk m)))
res))
[] k-f-map))
(make-vector k-f-map m1)
-> [2 3]
(make-vector k-f-map m2)
-> [2 3 7]
;;; replace [:a :b :c] with a vector of arbitrary functions
;;; of your choice, or perhaps accept a seqable of functions
;;; as an extra argument
(defn make-vector [thing]
(into [] (keep #(% thing) [:a :b :c])))
;;; from the REPL:
(make-vector {:a 1 :b 2})
; => [1 2]
(make-vector {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3})
; => [1 2 3]
Note that keep only throws out nil; false will be included in the output.
or using cond->?
your make-vector function in cond-> version:
(defn make-vector [thing]
(cond-> [(this (:a thing))
(that (:b thing))]
(:c thing) (conj (the-other (:c thing)))))
you can have more conditions or change :a and :b to be optional as well.