So I recently learned that I cannot modify parameters in a Clojure function.
I have a big function that takes in a list, then does about 5 different steps to modify it and then returns the output.
But what I'm doing now is
(defn modify [my-list other params]
(if (nil? my-list)
my-list
(let [running my-list]
(def running (filter #(> (count %) 1) my-list))
(def running (adjust-values running))
; a whole bunch of other code with conditions that depend on other parameters and that modify the running list
(if (< (count other) (count my-list))
(def running (something))
(def running (somethingelse)))
(def my-map (convert-list-to-map my-list))
(loop [] .... ) loop through map to do some operation
(def my-list (convert-map-to-list my-map)
running
)))
This doesn't seem correct, but I basically tried writing the code as I'd do in Python cuz I wasn't sure how else to do it. How is it done in Clojure?
Instead of using def inside the modify function, you can have a let with multiple bindings. Actually, def is typically only used at the top-level to define things once and is not meant to be a mechanism to allow for mutability. Here is an example of a let with multiple bindings, which is similar to introducing local variables except that you cannot change them:
(defn modify2 [my-list other params]
(if (nil? my-list)
my-list
(let [a (filter #(> (count %) 1) my-list)
b (adjust-values a)
c (adjust-values1 other b)
d (adjust-values2 params c)]
d)))
Here we introduce new names a, b, c and d for each partial result of the final computation. But it is OK to just have a single binding that gets rebound on each line, that is, you could have a single binding running that gets rebound:
(defn modify2 [my-list other params]
(if (nil? my-list)
my-list
(let [running (filter #(> (count %) 1) my-list)
running (adjust-values running)
running (adjust-values1 other running)
running (adjust-values2 params running)]
running)))
Which one you prefer is a matter of style and taste, there are up and downsides with either approach. The let form to introduce new bindings is a powerful construct, but for this specific example where we have a pipeline of steps, we can use the ->> macro that will generate the code for us. So we would instead write
(defn modify3 [my-list other params]
(if (nil? my-list)
my-list
(->> my-list
(filter #(> (count %) 1))
adjust-values
(adjust-values1 other)
(adjust-values2 params))))
It takes the first macro argument and then passes it in as the last parameter to the function call on the following line. Then the result of that line goes in as a last parameter to the line that follows and so on. If a function call just takes a single argument as is the case for adjust-values in the example above, we don't need to surround it with parentheses. See also the similar -> macro.
To see which code is generated by the ->>, we can use macroexpand:
(macroexpand '(->> my-list
(filter #(> (count %) 1))
adjust-values
(adjust-values1 other)
(adjust-values2 params)))
;; => (adjust-values2 params (adjust-values1 other (adjust-values (filter (fn* [p1__7109#] (> (count p1__7109#) 1)) my-list))))
Added: Summary
If your computation has a pipeline structure, the -> and ->> macros can be used to express that computation concisely. However, if your computation has a general shape where, you will want to use let to associate symbols with results of sub-expressions, so that you can use those symbols in subsequent expressions inside the let form.
Yes, this is the way Clojure was designed: as a functional language with
immutable data (of course with fallbacks to what the host offers if you
want or need it).
So if you want to modify data in consecutive steps, then you can either
chain the calls (looks nicer with the threading macros). E.g.
(->> my-list
(filter #(> (count %) 1))
(adjust-values))
This is the same as:
(adjust-values
(filter #(> (count %) 1)
my-list))
If you prefer to do that in steps (e.g. you want to print intermediate
results or you need them), you can have multiple bindings in the let. E.g.
(let [running my-list
filttered (filter #(> (count %) 1) running)
adjusted (adjust-values filtered)
running ((if (< (count other) (count adjusted)) something somethingelse))
my-map (convert-list-to-map my-list)
transformed-map (loop [] .... )
result (convert-map-to-list transformed-map)]
result)
This returns the adjusted values and holds on to all the things in
between (this does nothing right now with the intermediate results, just an example).
And aside: never ever def inside other forms unless you know what you
are doing; def define top level vars in a namespace - it's not a way
to define mutable variables you can bang on iteratively like you might
be used to from other languages).
Related
I need to write a Clojure function which takes an unevaluated arbitrarily deep nesting of lists as input, and then determines if any item in the list (not in function position) is non-numeric. This is my first time writing anything in Clojure so I am a bit confused. Here is my first attempt at making the function:
(defn list-eval
[x]
(for [lst x]
(for [item lst]
(if(integer? item)
(println "")
(println "This list contains a non-numeric value")))))
I tried to use a nested for-loop to iterate through each item in every nested list. Trying to test the function like so:
=> (list-eval (1(2 3("a" 5(3)))))
results in this exception:
ClassCastException java.lang.Long cannot be cast to clojure.lang.IFn listeval.core/eval7976 (form-init4504441070457356195.clj:1)
Does the problem here lie in the code, or in how I call the function and pass an argument? In either case, how can I make this work as intended?
This happens because (1 ..) is treated as calling a function, and 1 is a Long, and not a function. First you should change the nested list to '(1(2 3("a" 5(3)))). Next you can change your function to run recursively:
(defn list-eval
[x]
(if (list? x)
(for [lst x] (list-eval lst))
(if (integer? x)
(println "")
(println "This list contains a non-numeric value"))))
=> (list-eval '(1(2 3("a" 5(3)))))
There is a cool function called tree-seq that does all the hard work for you in traversing the structure. Use it then remove any collections, remove all numbers, and check if there is anything left.
(defn any-non-numbers?
[x]
(->> x
(tree-seq coll? #(if (map? %) (vals %) %))
(remove (some-fn coll? number?))
not-empty
boolean))
Examples:
user=> (any-non-numbers? 1)
false
user=> (any-non-numbers? [1 2])
false
user=> (any-non-numbers? [1 2 "sd"])
true
user=> (any-non-numbers? [1 2 "sd" {:x 1}])
true
user=> (any-non-numbers? [1 2 {:x 1}])
false
user=> (any-non-numbers? [1 2 {:x 1 :y "hello"}])
true
If you want to consider map keys as well, just change (vals %) to (interleave (keys %) (vals %)).
quoting
As others have mentioned, you need to quote a list to keep it from being evaluated as
code. That's the cause of the exception you're seeing.
for and nesting
for will only descend to the nesting depth you tell it to. It is not a for loop,
as you might expect, but a sequence comprehension, like the the python list comprehension.
(for [x xs, y ys] y) will presume that xs is a list of lists and flatten it.
(for [x xs, y ys, z zs] z) Is the same but with an extra level of nesting.
To walk down to any depth, you'd usually use recursion.
(There are ways to do this iteratively, but they're more difficult to wrap your head around.)
side effects
You're doing side effects (printing) inside a lazy sequence. This will work at the repl,
but if you're not using the result anywhere, it won't run and cause great confusion.
It's something every new clojurian bumps into at some point.
(doseq is like for, but for side effects.)
The clojure way is to separate functions that work with values from functions that
"do stuff", like printing to the console of launching missiles, and to keep the
side effecting functions as simple as possible.
putting it all together
Let's make a clear problem statement: Is there a non number anywhere inside an
arbitrarily nested list? If there is, print a message saying that to the console.
In a lot of cases, when you'd use a for loop in other langs reduce is what you want in clojure.
(defn collect-nested-non-numbers
;; If called with one argument, call itself with empty accumulator
;; and that argument.
([form] (collect-nested-non-numbers [] form))
([acc x]
(if (coll? x)
;; If x is a collection, use reduce to call itself on every element.
(reduce collect-nested-non-numbers acc x)
;; Put x into the accumulator if it's a non-number
(if (number? x)
acc
(conj acc x)))))
;; A function that ends in a question mark is (by convention) one that
;; returns a boolean.
(defn only-numbers? [form]
(empty? (collect-nested-non-numbers form)))
;; Our function that does stuff becomes very simple.
;; Which is a good thing, cause it's difficult to test.
(defn warn-on-non-numbers [form]
(when-not (only-numbers? form)
(println "This list contains a non-numeric value")))
And that'll work. There already exists a bunch of things that'll help you walk a nested structure, though, so you don't need to do it manually.
There's the clojure.walk namespace that comes with clojure. It's for when you have
a nested thing and want to transform some parts of it. There's tree-seq which is explained
in another answer. Specter is a library which is
a very powerful mini language for expressing transformations of nested structures.
Then there's my utils library comfy which contains reduce versions of the
functions in clojure.walk, for when you've got a nested thing and want to "reduce" it to a single value.
The nice thing about that is that you can use reduced which is like the imperative break statement, but for reduce. If it finds a non-number it doesn't need to keep going through the whole thing.
(ns foo.core
(:require
[madstap.comfy :as comfy]))
(defn only-numbers? [form]
(comfy/prewalk-reduce
(fn [ret x]
(if (or (coll? x) (number? x))
ret
(reduced false)))
true
form))
Maybe by "any item in the list (not in function position)" you meant this?
(defn only-numbers-in-arg-position? [form]
(comfy/prewalk-reduce
(fn [ret x]
(if (and (list? x) (not (every? (some-fn number? list?) (rest x))))
(reduced false)
ret))
true
form))
First, I have no experience with CS and Clojure is my first language, so pardon if the following problem has a solution, that is immediately apparent for a programmer.
The summary of the question is as follows: one needs to create atoms at will with unknown yet symbols at unknown times. My approach revolves around a) storing temporarily the names of the atoms as strings in an atom itself; b) changing those strings to symbols with a function; c) using a function to add and create new atoms. The problem pertains to step "c": calling the function does not create new atoms, but using its body does create them.
All steps taken in the REPL are below (comments follow code blocks):
user=> (def atom-pool
#_=> (atom ["a1" "a2"]))
#'user/atom-pool
'atom-pool is the atom that stores intermediate to-be atoms as strings.
user=> (defn atom-symbols []
#_=> (mapv symbol (deref atom-pool)))
#'user/atom-symbols
user=> (defmacro populate-atoms []
#_=> (let [qs (vec (remove #(resolve %) (atom-symbols)))]
#_=> `(do ~#(for [s qs]
#_=> `(def ~s (atom #{}))))))
#'user/populate-atoms
'populate-atoms is the macro, that defines those atoms. Note, the purpose of (remove #(resolve %) (atom-symbols)) is to create only yet non-existing atoms. 'atom-symbols reads 'atom-pool and turns its content to symbols.
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(nil nil nil)
Here it is confirmed that there are no 'a1', 'a2', 'a-new' atoms as of yet.
user=> (defn new-atom [a]
#_=> (do
#_=> (swap! atom-pool conj a)
#_=> (populate-atoms)))
#'user/new-atom
'new-atom is the function, that first adds new to-be atom as string to `atom-pool. Then 'populate-atoms creates all the atoms from 'atom-symbols function.
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 nil)
Here we see that 'a1 'a2 were created as clojure.lang.Var$Unbound just by defining a function, why?
user=> (new-atom "a-new")
#'user/a2
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 nil)
Calling (new-atom "a-new") did not create the 'a-new atom!
user=> (do
#_=> (swap! atom-pool conj "a-new")
#_=> (populate-atoms))
#'user/a-new
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 #'user/a-new)
user=>
Here we see that resorting explicitly to 'new-atom's body did create the 'a-new atom. 'a-new is a type of clojure.lang.Atom, but 'a1 and 'a2 were skipped due to already being present in the namespace as clojure.lang.Var$Unbound.
Appreciate any help how to make it work!
EDIT: Note, this is an example. In my project the 'atom-pool is actually a collection of maps (atom with maps). Those maps have keys {:name val}. If a new map is added, then I create a corresponding atom for this map by parsing its :name key.
"The summary of the question is as follows: one needs to create atoms at will with unknown yet symbols at unknown times. "
This sounds like a solution looking for a problem. I would generally suggest you try another way of achieving whatever the actual functionality is without generating vars at runtime, but if you must, you should use intern and leave out the macro stuff.
You cannot solve this with macros since macros are expanded at compile time, meaning that in
(defn new-atom [a]
(do
(swap! atom-pool conj a)
(populate-atoms)))
populate-atoms is expanded only once; when the (defn new-atom ...) form is compiled, but you're attempting to change its expansion when new-atom is called (which necessarily happens later).
#JoostDiepenmaat is right about why populate-atoms is not behaving as expected. You simply cannot do this using macros, and it is generally best to avoid generating vars at runtime. A better solution would be to define your atom-pool as a map of keywords to atoms:
(def atom-pool
(atom {:a1 (atom #{}) :a2 (atom #{})}))
Then you don't need atom-symbols or populate-atoms because you're not dealing with vars at compile-time, but typical data structures at run-time. Your new-atom function could look like this:
(defn new-atom [kw]
(swap! atom-pool assoc kw (atom #{})))
EDIT: If you don't want your new-atom function to override existing atoms which might contain actual data instead of just #{}, you can check first to see if the atom exists in the atom-pool:
(defn new-atom [kw]
(when-not (kw #atom-pool)
(swap! atom-pool assoc kw (atom #{}))))
I've already submitted one answer to this question, and I think that that answer is better, but here is a radically different approach based on eval:
(def atom-pool (atom ["a1" "a2"]))
(defn new-atom! [name]
(load-string (format "(def %s (atom #{}))" name)))
(defn populate-atoms! []
(doseq [x atom-pool]
(new-atom x)))
format builds up a string where %s is substituted with the name you're passing in. load-string reads the resulting string (def "name" (atom #{})) in as a data structure and evals it (this is equivalent to (eval (read-string "(def ...)
Of course, then we're stuck with the problem of only defining atoms that don't already exist. We could change the our new-atom! function to make it so that we only create an atom if it doesn't already exist:
(defn new-atom! [name]
(when-not (resolve (symbol name))
(load-string (format "(def %s (atom #{}))" name name))))
The Clojure community seems to be against using eval in most cases, as it is usually not needed (macros or functions will do what you want in 99% of cases*), and eval can be potentially unsafe, especially if user input is involved -- see Brian Carper's answer to this question.
*After attempting to solve this particular problem using macros, I came to the conclusion that it either cannot be done without relying on eval, or my macro-writing skills just aren't good enough to get the job done with a macro!
At any rate, I still think my other answer is a better solution here -- generally when you're getting way down into the nuts & bolts of writing macros or using eval, there is probably a simpler approach that doesn't involve metaprogramming.
I'm a total beginer in Clojure and I've ran into a problem that I'm not even sure if can be done in Closure.
So the issue is the following. I've implemented a function that computes the prime numbers from an interval (up to a limit).
(defn gather_primes_in_range [range_start range_end target_number prime_list]
(if (or (= 0 target_number) (> range_start range_end) (= FIND_MORE_PRIMES false))
prime_list
(do
(if (is_prime? range_start)
(gather_primes_in_range (+ range_start 1) range_end (- target_number 1) (conj, prime_list, range_start))
(gather_primes_in_range (+ range_start 1) range_end target_number prime_list)
)
)
)
)
(defn find_nr_of_primes_in_range [range_start range_end target_number]
(if (< range_start 2)
(gather_primes_in_range 2 range_end target_number [])
(gather_primes_in_range range_start range_end target_number [])
)
)
This works just fine. But what I want now is to have a global variable that should store on each method call the primes that are found in a variable to lookup later. In other languages like Python, Ruby or Scala I would just do this by having a Set to which I add entries before returing from the function. But in Clojure I have no ideea how to go around this.
Basically what I tried is, have somewhere global declared:
(def PRIMES_FOUND_SO_FAR #{})
And then somehow on return add the entries to this variable. Is this possible at all in Clojure and if so how? I've tried on other variables to change their values using either swap! and atom, or set! but could not make it to work here in any situation.
Firstly, I strongly advice you to read about clojure code conventions What are Clojure's Naming Conventions?
Let me show you some improvements of your code.
1) Applying clojure naming conventions.
Then switch from (+ variable 1) to (inc variable) (the same optimizations with dec).
Also (= FIND_MORE_PRIMES false) can be simply replaced by find-more-primes?
And finally the condition (= 0 smthng) could be written in more idiomatic style (zero? smthng)
Now your code looks a bit more readable:
(defn gather-primes-in-range [range-start range-end target-number prime-list]
(if (or (zero? target-number) (> range-start range-end) need-more-primes?)
prime-list
(do
(if (is-prime? range-start)
(gather-primes-in-range (inc range-start) range-end (dec target-number) (conj prime-list range-start))
(gather-primes-in-range (inc range-start) range-end target-number prime-list)))))
2) Now we should remove redundant do call cause it wraps the only one function call.
And the last trick is to apply tail recursion (http://clojure.org/special_forms#Special%20Forms--(recur%20exprs*)) via swapping entire gather-primes-in-range calls to recur
(defn gather-primes-in-range
[range-start range-end target-number prime-list]
(if (or (zero? target-number) (> range-start range-end) need-more-primes?)
prime-list
(if (is-prime? range-start)
(recur (inc range-start) range-end (dec target-number) (conj prime-list range-start))
(recur (inc range-start) range-end target-number prime-list))))
And here comes time for answering your question. You wouldn't benefit from this approach
(def PRIMES_FOUND_SO_FAR #{})
because you haven't opportunity to change this set. The only thing that you can deal with it is to create some new immutable data structure from that one.
As #georgek mention you could simply use atom in this particular case.
(def PRIMES_FOUND_SO_FAR (atom #{}))
Adding new prime number to atom:
(swap! PRIMES_FOUND_SO_FAR conj prime-number)
Deref atom for extracting the value:
#PRIMES_FOUND_SO_FAR ;; or (deref PRIMES_FOUND_SO_FAR)
-> #{2 3 5 7 11}
Anyway your code is a little bit imperative but you should always remember that clojure is functional language with immutable data structures, functions as arguments, etc. using global variables is not good idea at all. BTW thats how your function should look like in clojure style:
(defn gather-primes-in-range [start end target-number]
(take target-number (filter is-prime? (range start end))))
for those who have spent too much time searching how to modify a global (root) variable in clojure here is the solution:
(def user-remote-browser "anonymous")
you can modify it from anywhere i suppose but in the same namepace with:
(alter-var-root #'user-remote-browser (constantly name))
alter-var-root use a function to modify a variable,
constantly create a constant function returning here the string name
How to make clojure to count '() as nil?
For example:
How to make something like
(if '() :true :false)
;to be
:false
;Or easier
(my-fun/macro/namespace/... (if '() :true :false))
:false
And not just if. In every way.
(= nil '()) or (my-something (= nil '()))
true
And every code to be (= '() nil) save.
(something (+ 1 (if (= nil '()) 1 2)))
2
I was thinking about some kind of regural expression. Which will look on code and replace '() by nil, but there are some things like (rest '(1)) and many others which are '() and I am not sure how to handle it.
I was told that macros allow you to build your own languages. I want to try it by changing clojure. So this is much about "How clojure works and how to change it?" than "I really need it to for my work."
Thank you for help.
'() just isn't the same thing as nil - why would you want it do be?
What you might be looking for though is the seq function, which returns nil if given an empty collection:
(seq [1 2 3])
=> (1 2 3)
(seq [])
=> nil
(seq '())
=> nil
seq is therefore often used to test for "emptiness", with idioms like:
(if (seq coll)
(do-something-with coll)
(get-empty-result))
You say you would like to change Clojure using the macros. Presently, as far as I know, this is not something you could do with the "regular" macro system (terminology fix anyone?). What you would really need (I think) is a reader macro. Things I have seen online (here, for example) seem to say that there exists something like reader macros in Clojure 1.4--but I have no familiarity with this because I really like using clooj as my IDE, and it currently is not using Clojure 1.4. Maybe somebody else has better info on this "extensible reader" magic.
Regardless, I don't really like the idea of changing the language in that way, and I think there is a potentially very good alternative: namely, the Clojure function not-empty.
This function takes any collection and either returns that collection as is, or returns nil if that collection is empty. This means that anywhere you will want () to return nil, you should wrap it not-empty. This answer is very similar to mikera's answer above, except that you don't have to convert your collections to sequences (which can be nice).
Both using seq and not-empty are pretty silly in cases where you have a "hand-written" collection. After all, if you are writing it by hand (or rather, typing it manually), then you are going to know for sure whether or not it is empty. The cases in which this is useful is when you have an expression or a symbol that returns a collection, and you do not know whether the returned collection will be empty or not.
Example:
=> (if-let [c (not-empty (take (rand-int 5) [:a :b :c :d]))]
(println c)
(println "Twas empty"))
;//80% of the time, this will print some non-empty sub-list of [:a :b :c :d]
;//The other 20% of the time, this will return...
Twas empty
=> nil
What about empty? ? It's the most expressive.
(if (empty? '())
:true
:false)
You can override macros and functions. For instance:
(defn classic-lisp [arg]
(if (seq? arg) (seq arg) arg))
(defn = [& args]
(apply clojure.core/= (map classic-lisp args)))
(defmacro when [cond & args]
`(when (classic-lisp ~cond) ~#args))
Unfortunately, you can't override if, as it is a special form and not a macro. You will have to wrap your code with another macro.
Let's make an if* macro to be an if with common-lisp behavior:
(defmacro if* [cond & args]
`(if (classic-lisp ~cond) ~#args)
With this, we can replace all ifs with if*s:
(use 'clojure.walk)
(defn replace-ifs [code]
(postwalk-replace '{if if*} (macroexpand-all code)))
(defmacro clojure-the-old-way [& body]
`(do ~#(map replace-ifs body)))
Now:
=> (clojure-the-old-way (if '() :true :false) )
:false
You should be able to load files and replace ifs in them too:
(defn read-clj-file [filename]
;; loads list of clojure expressions from file *filename*
(read-string (str "(" (slurp filename) ")")))
(defn load-clj-file-the-old-way [filename]
(doseq [line (replace-ifs (read-clj-file filename))] (eval line))
Note that I didn't test the code to load files and it might be incompatible with leiningen or namespaces. I believe it should work with overriden = though.
I'm trying to create some dynamic code within clojure. In the function below, the idea is that the conditions for the (and) macro will be dynamically generated.
(defn matching-keys [rec match-feed keys]
(> (count (clojure.set/select #(and (for [k keys]
(= (% k) (rec k))))
(set match-feed)))
0))
So if it worked!! then this code would produce an (and) something like this when passed keys of [:tag :attrs]:
(and (= (% :tag) (rec :tag))
(= (% :attrs) (rec :attrs)))
I've been messing around with various `` and~` operators to try to make it work, and am now in a state of confusion. Any guidance is welcome.
Thanks,
Colin
You don't need dynamically generated code for this. Changing the anonymous function to #(every? (fn [k] (= (% k) (rec k))) keys) should do what you want without generating code at runtime.
The ability to use higher-order functions means that you should hardly ever need to dynamically generate code.
You can use eval to evaluate a dynamically built form, e.g.:
(eval '(= 2 3))
Keep in mind that a dynamically evaluated form will have no access to the lexical context. It means that:
(let [a 1 b 2]
(eval '(+ a b)))
will not work.
However, it is still possible to use a dynamic environment:
(def a nil)
(def b nil)
(binding [a 1 b 2]
(eval '(+ a b)))