Using clojure, Is there a better way to to remove a item from a sequence, which is the value in a map? - clojure

Question

There is a map containing sequences. The sequences contain items.
I want to remove a given item from any sequence that contains it.
The solution I found does what it should, but I wonder if there is a better
or more elegant way to achieve the same.
my current solution:
(defn remove-item-from-map-value [my-map item]
(apply merge (for [[k v] my-map] {k (remove #(= item %) v)})))
The test describe the expected behaviour:
(require '[clojure.test :as t])
(def my-map {:keyOne ["itemOne"]
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"]})
(defn remove-item-from-map-value [my-map item]
(apply merge (for [[k v] my-map] {k (remove #(= item %) v)})))
(t/is (= (remove-item-from-map-value my-map "unknown-item") my-map))
(t/is (= (remove-item-from-map-value my-map "itemFive") {:keyOne ["itemOne"]
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemSix"]}))
(t/is (= (remove-item-from-map-value my-map "itemThree") {:keyOne ["itemOne"]
:keyTwo ["itemTwo"]
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"]}))
(t/is (= (remove-item-from-map-value my-map "itemOne") {:keyOne []
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"]}))
I'm fairly new to clojure and am interested in different solutions.
So any input is welcome.

Answer 1

I throw in the specter
version for good measure. It keeps the vectors inside the map
and it's really compact.
(setval [MAP-VALS ALL #{"itemFive"}] NONE my-map)
Example
user=> (use 'com.rpl.specter)
nil
user=> (def my-map {:keyOne ["itemOne"]
#_=> :keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]
#_=> :keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"]})
#_=>
#'user/my-map
user=> (setval [MAP-VALS ALL #{"itemFive"}] NONE my-map)
{:keyOne ["itemOne"],
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemSix"],
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]}
user=> (setval [MAP-VALS ALL #{"unknown"}] NONE my-map)
{:keyOne ["itemOne"],
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"],
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]}

Answer 2

i would go with something like this:
user> (defn remove-item [my-map item]
(into {}
(map (fn [[k v]] [k (remove #{item} v)]))
my-map))
#'user/remove-item
user> (remove-item my-map "itemFour")
;;=> {:keyOne ("itemOne"),
;; :keyTwo ("itemTwo" "itemThree"),
;; :keyThree ("itemFive" "itemSix")}
you could also make up a handy function map-val performing mapping on map values:
(defn map-val [f data]
(reduce-kv
(fn [acc k v] (assoc acc k (f v)))
{} data))
or shortly like this:
(defn map-val [f data]
(reduce #(update % %2 f) data (keys data)))
user> (map-val inc {:a 1 :b 2})
;;=> {:a 2, :b 3}
(defn remove-item [my-map item]
(map-val (partial remove #{item}) my-map))
user> (remove-item my-map "itemFour")
;;=> {:keyOne ("itemOne"),
;; :keyTwo ("itemTwo" "itemThree"),
;; :keyThree ("itemFive" "itemSix")}

Answer 3

I think your solution is mostly okay, but I would try to avoid the apply merge part, as you can easily recreate a map from a sequence with into. Also, you could also use map instead of for which I think is a little bit more idiomatic in this case as you don't use any of the list comprehension features of for.
(defn remove-item-from-map-value [m item]
(->> m
(map (fn [[k vs]]
{k (remove #(= item %) vs)}))
(into {})))

Answer 4

Another solution much like #leetwinski:
(defn remove-item [m i]
(zipmap (keys m)
(map (fn [v] (remove #(= % i) v))
(vals m))))

Answer 5

Here's a one-liner which does this in an elegant way. The perfect function for me to use in this scenario is clojure.walk/prewalk. What this fn does is it traverse all of the sub-forms of the form that you pass to it and it transforms them with the provided fn:
(defn remove-item-from-map-value [data item]
(clojure.walk/prewalk #(if (map-entry? %) [(first %) (remove #{item} (second %))] %) data))
What the remove-item-from-map-value fn will do is it will check if current form is a map entry and if so, it will remove specified key from its value (second element of the map entry, which is a vector containing a key and a value, respectively).
The best this about this approach is that is is completely extendable: you could decide to do different things for different types of forms, you can also handle nested forms, etc.
It took me some time to master this fn but once I got it I found it extremely useful!