I have occasionally used memoize function. In usually the following form:
(defn- sqrt-denom [iterations]
(/ 1 (if (= iterations 0)
2
(+ 2 (sqrt-denom (dec iterations))))))
(def sqrt-denom (memoize sqrt-denom))
I assumed that it is "proper" to reuse the function name when memoizing. Is this a good practice? Or should I use different names for the non-memoized and memoized functions?
I would never re-use the name of a top-level def, especially when self-referencing. Two choices:
(defn ^:no-doc sqrt-denom-impl [iterations]
(/ 1 (if (= iterations 0)
2
(+ 2 (sqrt-denom (dec iterations))))))
(def sqrt-denom (memoize sqrt-denom-impl))
or even simpler:
(def sqrt-denom
(memoize (fn [iterations]
(/ 1 (if (= iterations 0)
2
(+ 2 (sqrt-denom (dec iterations))))))
Like Alan Thompson, I've often used (def sqrt-denom (memoize (fn ...))), but it's awkward to split a simple defn into a def and fn just to wrap the latter. The syntactic transformation makes it difficult to switch back and forth between the memoized and the unmemoized versions of the function, and memoize is the one function that made me wish Clojure had something like Python decorators.
Then, recently, I discovered that Clojure does have decorators:
(defn sqrt-denom ...)
(alter-var-root #'sqrt-denom memoize)
This is very similar to your example, but it avoids the confusion of two vars named the same thing, and it clearly states the author's intent. This is now my preferred method for memoizing functions.
Related
I find myself writing a lot of clojure in this manner:
(defn my-fun [input]
(let [result1 (some-complicated-procedure input)
result2 (some-other-procedure result1)]
(do-something-with-results result1 result2)))
This let statement seems very... imperative. Which I don't like. In principal, I could be writing the same function like this:
(defn my-fun [input]
(do-something-with-results (some-complicated-procedure input)
(some-other-procedure (some-complicated-procedure input)))))
The problem with this is that it involves recomputation of some-complicated-procedure, which may be arbitrarily expensive. Also you can imagine that some-complicated-procedure is actually a series of nested function calls, and then I either have to write a whole new function, or risk that changes in the first invocation don't get applied to the second:
E.g. this works, but I have to have an extra shallow, top-level function that makes it hard to do a mental stack trace:
(defn some-complicated-procedure [input] (lots (of (nested (operations input)))))
(defn my-fun [input]
(do-something-with-results (some-complicated-procedure input)
(some-other-procedure (some-complicated-procedure input)))))
E.g. this is dangerous because refactoring is hard:
(defn my-fun [input]
(do-something-with-results (lots (of (nested (operations (mistake input))))) ; oops made a change here that wasn't applied to the other nested calls
(some-other-procedure (lots (of (nested (operations input))))))))
Given these tradeoffs, I feel like I don't have any alternatives to writing long, imperative let statements, but when I do, I cant shake the feeling that I'm not writing idiomatic clojure. Is there a way I can address the computation and code cleanliness problems raised above and write idiomatic clojure? Are imperitive-ish let statements idiomatic?
The kind of let statements you describe might remind you of imperative code, but there is nothing imperative about them. Haskell has similar statements for binding names to values within bodies, too.
If your situation really needs a bigger hammer, there are some bigger hammers that you can either use or take for inspiration. The following two libraries offer some kind of binding form (akin to let) with a localized memoization of results, so as to perform only the necessary steps and reuse their results if needed again: Plumatic Plumbing, specifically the Graph part; and Zach Tellman's Manifold, whose let-flow form furthermore orchestrates asynchronous steps to wait for the necessary inputs to become available, and to run in parallel when possible. Even if you decide to maintain your present course, their docs make good reading, and the code of Manifold itself is educational.
I recently had this same question when I looked at this code I wrote
(let [user-symbols (map :symbol states)
duplicates (for [[id freq] (frequencies user-symbols) :when (> freq 1)] id)]
(do-something-with duplicates))
You'll note that map and for are lazy and will not be executed until do-something-with is executed. It's also possible that not all (or even not any) of the states will be mapped or the frequencies calculated. It depends on what do-something-with actually requests of the sequence returned by for. This is very much functional and idiomatic functional programming.
i guess the simplest approach to keep it functional would be to have a pass-through state to accumulate the intermediate results. something like this:
(defn with-state [res-key f state]
(assoc state res-key (f state)))
user> (with-state :res (comp inc :init) {:init 10})
;;=> {:init 10, :res 11}
so you can move on to something like this:
(->> {:init 100}
(with-state :inc'd (comp inc :init))
(with-state :inc-doubled (comp (partial * 2) :inc'd))
(with-state :inc-doubled-squared (comp #(* % %) :inc-doubled))
(with-state :summarized (fn [st] (apply + (vals st)))))
;;=> {:init 100,
;; :inc'd 101,
;; :inc-doubled 202,
;; :inc-doubled-squared 40804,
;; :summarized 41207}
The let form is a perfectly functional construct and can be seen as syntactic sugar for calls to anonymous functions. We can easily write a recursive macro to implement our own version of let:
(defmacro my-let [bindings body]
(if (empty? bindings)
body
`((fn [~(first bindings)]
(my-let ~(rest (rest bindings)) ~body))
~(second bindings))))
Here is an example of calling it:
(my-let [a 3
b (+ a 1)]
(* a b))
;; => 12
And here is a macroexpand-all called on the above expression, that reveal how we implement my-let using anonymous functions:
(clojure.walk/macroexpand-all '(my-let [a 3
b (+ a 1)]
(* a b)))
;; => ((fn* ([a] ((fn* ([b] (* a b))) (+ a 1)))) 3)
Note that the expansion doesn't rely on let and that the bound symbols become parameter names in the anonymous functions.
As others write, let is actually perfectly functional, but at times it can feel imperative. It's better to become fully comfortable with it.
You might, however, want to kick the tires of my little library tl;dr that lets you write code like for example
(compute
(+ a b c)
where
a (f b)
c (+ 100 b))
I've just started learning Clojure and trying to understand the difference between 2 approaches which at first sight seem very identical.
(def func0 (delay (do
(println "did some work")
100)))
so.core=> (force my-delay2)
did some work
100
so.core=> (force my-delay2)
100
(defn vanilla-func [] (println "did some work") 100)
(def func1 (memoize vanilla-func))
so.core=> (func1)
did some work
100
so.core=> (func1)
100
Both approaches do some sort of function memoization. What am I missing?
I've tried to find the explanation on https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/delay & https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/memoize but couldn't.
delay holds one result and you have to deref to get the result.
memoize is an unbound cache, that caches the result depending on the
input arguments. E.g.
user=> (def myinc (memoize (fn [x] (println x) (inc x))))
#'user/myinc
user=> (myinc 1)
1
2
user=> (myinc 1)
2
In your (argument-less) example the only difference is that you can use
the result directly (no deref needed)
Classic use-cases for delay are things needed later, that would block
or delay startup. Or if you want to "hide" top-level defs from
the compiler (e.g. they do side-effects).
memoize is a classic cache and is best used if the calculation is
expensive and the set of input arguments is not excessive. There are
other caching options in the clojure-verse, that allow better
configurations (e.g. they are not unbound).
Is there a reasonable way to have multiple def statements happen with destructing the same way that let does it? For Example:
(let [[rtgs pcts] (->> (sort-by second row)
(apply map vector))]
.....)
What I want is something like:
(defs [rtgs pcts] (->> (sort-by second row)
(apply map vector)))
This comes up a lot in the REPL, notebooks and when debugging. Seriously feels like a missing feature so I'd like guidance on one of:
This exists already and I'm missing it
This is a bad idea because... (variable capture?, un-idiomatic?, Rich said so?)
It's just un-needed and I must be suffering from withdrawals from an evil language. (same as: don't mess up our language with your macros)
A super short experiment give me something like:
(defmacro def2 [[name1 name2] form]
`(let [[ret1# ret2#] ~form]
(do (def ~name1 ret1#)
(def ~name2 ret2#))))
And this works as in:
(def2 [three five] ((juxt dec inc) 4))
three ;; => 3
five ;; => 5
Of course and "industrial strength" version of that macro might be:
checking that number of names matches the number of inputs. (return from form)
recursive call to handle more names (can I do that in a macro like this?)
While I agree with Josh that you probably shouldn't have this running in production, I don't see any harm in having it as a convenience at the repl (in fact I think I'll copy this into my debug-repl kitchen-sink library).
I enjoy writing macros (although they're usually not needed) so I whipped up an implementation. It accepts any binding form, like in let.
(I wrote this specs-first, but if you're on clojure < 1.9.0-alpha17, you can just remove the spec stuff and it'll work the same.)
(ns macro-fun
(:require
[clojure.spec.alpha :as s]
[clojure.core.specs.alpha :as core-specs]))
(s/fdef syms-in-binding
:args (s/cat :b ::core-specs/binding-form)
:ret (s/coll-of simple-symbol? :kind vector?))
(defn syms-in-binding
"Returns a vector of all symbols in a binding form."
[b]
(letfn [(step [acc coll]
(reduce (fn [acc x]
(cond (coll? x) (step acc x)
(symbol? x) (conj acc x)
:else acc))
acc, coll))]
(if (symbol? b) [b] (step [] b))))
(s/fdef defs
:args (s/cat :binding ::core-specs/binding-form, :body any?))
(defmacro defs
"Like def, but can take a binding form instead of a symbol to
destructure the results of the body.
Doesn't support docstrings or other metadata."
[binding body]
`(let [~binding ~body]
~#(for [sym (syms-in-binding binding)]
`(def ~sym ~sym))))
;; Usage
(defs {:keys [foo bar]} {:foo 42 :bar 36})
foo ;=> 42
bar ;=> 36
(defs [a b [c d]] [1 2 [3 4]])
[a b c d] ;=> [1 2 3 4]
(defs baz 42)
baz ;=> 42
About your REPL-driven development comment:
I don't have any experience with Ipython, but I'll give a brief explanation of my REPL workflow and you can maybe comment about any comparisons/contrasts with Ipython.
I never use my repl like a terminal, inputting a command and waiting for a reply. My editor supports (emacs, but any clojure editor should do) putting the cursor at the end of any s-expression and sending that to the repl, "printing" the result after the cursor.
I usually have a comment block in the file where I start working, just typing whatever and evaluating it. Then, when I'm reasonably happy with a result, I pull it out of the "repl-area" and into the "real-code".
(ns stuff.core)
;; Real code is here.
;; I make sure that this part always basically works,
;; ie. doesn't blow up when I evaluate the whole file
(defn foo-fn [x]
,,,)
(comment
;; Random experiments.
;; I usually delete this when I'm done with a coding session,
;; but I copy some forms into tests.
;; Sometimes I leave it for posterity though,
;; if I think it explains something well.
(def some-data [,,,])
;; Trying out foo-fn, maybe copy this into a test when I'm done.
(foo-fn some-data)
;; Half-finished other stuff.
(defn bar-fn [x] ,,,)
(keys 42) ; I wonder what happens if...
)
You can see an example of this in the clojure core source code.
The number of defs that any piece of clojure will have will vary per project, but I'd say that in general, defs are not often the result of some computation, let alone the result of a computation that needs to be destructured. More often defs are the starting point for some later computation that will depend on this value.
Usually functions are better for computing a value; and if the computation is expensive, then you can memoize the function. If you feel you really need this functionality, then by all means, use your macro -- that's one of the sellings points of clojure, namely, extensibility! But in general, if you feel you need this construct, consider the possibility that you're relying too much on global state.
Just to give some real examples, I just referenced my main project at work, which is probably 2K-3K lines of clojure, in about 20 namespaces. We have about 20 defs, most of which are marked private and among them, none are actually computing anything. We have things like:
(def path-prefix "/some-path")
(def zk-conn (atom nil))
(def success? #{200})
(def compile* (clojure.core.memoize/ttl compiler {} ...)))
(def ^:private nashorn-factory (NashornScriptEngineFactory.))
(def ^:private read-json (comp json/read-str ... ))
Defining functions (using comp and memoize), enumerations, state via atom -- but no real computation.
So I'd say, based on your bullet points above, this falls somewhere between 2 and 3: it's definitely not a common use case that's needed (you're the first person I've ever heard who wants this, so it's uncommon to me anyway); and the reason it's uncommon is because of what I said above, i.e., it may be a code smell that indicates reliance on too much global state, and hence, would not be very idiomatic.
One litmus test I have for much of my code is: if I pull this function out of this namespace and paste it into another, does it still work? Removing dependencies on external vars allows for easier testing and more modular code. Sometimes we need it though, so see what your requirements are and proceed accordingly. Best of luck!
I find I very rarely use let in Clojure. For some reason I took a dislike to it when I started learning and have avoided using it ever since. It feels like the flow has stopped when let comes along. I was wondering, do you think we could do without it altogether ?
You can replace any occurrence of (let [a1 b1 a2 b2...] ...) by ((fn [a1 a2 ...] ...) b1 b2 ...) so yes, we could. I am using let a lot though, and I'd rather not do without it.
Let offers a few benefits. First, it allows value binding in a functional context. Second, it confers readability benefits. So while technically, one could do away with it (in the sense that you could still program without it), the language would be impoverished without a valuable tool.
One of the nice things about let is that it helps formalize a common (mathematical) way of specifying a computation, in which you introduce convenient bindings and then a simplified formula as a result. It's clear the bindings only apply to that "scope" and it's tie in with a more mathematical formulation is useful, especially for more functional programmers.
It's not a coincidence that let blocks occur in other languages like Haskell.
Let is indispensable to me in preventing multiple execution in macros:
(defmacro print-and-run [s-exp]
`(do (println "running " (quote ~s-exp) "produced " ~s-exp)
s-exp))
would run s-exp twice, which is not what we want:
(defmacro print-and-run [s-exp]
`(let [result# s-exp]
(do (println "running " (quote ~s-exp) "produced " result#)
result#))
fixes this by binding the result of the expression to a name and referring to that result twice.
because the macro is returning an expression that will become part of another expression (macros are function that produce s-expressions) they need to produce local bindings to prevent multiple execution and avoid symbol capture.
I think I understand your question. Correct me if it's wrong. Some times "let" is used for imperative programming style. For example,
... (let [x (...)
y (...x...)
z (...x...y...)
....x...y...z...] ...
This pattern comes from imperative languages:
... { x = ...;
y = ...x...;
...x...y...;} ...
You avoid this style and that's why you also avoid "let", don't you?
In some problems imperative style reduces amount of code. Furthermore, some times It's more efficient to write in java or c.
Also in some cases "let" just holds values of subexpressions regardless of evaluation order. For example,
(... (let [a (...)
b (...)...]
(...a...b...a...b...) ;; still fp style
There are at least two important use cases for let-bindings:
First, using let properly can make your code clearer and shorter. If you have an expression that you use more than once, binding it in a let is very nice. Here's a portion of the standard function map that uses let:
...
(let [s1 (seq c1) s2 (seq c2)]
(when (and s1 s2)
(cons (f (first s1) (first s2))
(map f (rest s1) (rest s2)))))))
...
Even if you use an expression only once, it can still be helpful (to future readers of the code) to give it a semantically meaningful name.
Second, as Arthur mentioned, if you want to use the value of an expression more than once, but only want it evaluated once, you can't simply type out the entire expression twice: you need some kind of binding. This would be merely wasteful if you have a pure expression:
user=> (* (+ 3 2) (+ 3 2))
25
but actually changes the meaning of the program if the expression has side-effects:
user=> (* (+ 3 (do (println "hi") 2))
(+ 3 (do (println "hi") 2)))
hi
hi
25
user=> (let [x (+ 3 (do (println "hi") 2))]
(* x x))
hi
25
Stumbled upon this recently so ran some timings:
(testing "Repeat vs Let vs Fn"
(let [start (System/currentTimeMillis)]
(dotimes [x 1000000]
(* (+ 3 2) (+ 3 2)))
(prn (- (System/currentTimeMillis) start)))
(let [start (System/currentTimeMillis)
n (+ 3 2)]
(dotimes [x 1000000]
(* n n))
(prn (- (System/currentTimeMillis) start)))
(let [start (System/currentTimeMillis)]
(dotimes [x 1000000]
((fn [x] (* x x)) (+ 3 2)))
(prn (- (System/currentTimeMillis) start)))))
Output
Testing Repeat vs Let vs Fn
116
18
60
'let' wins over 'pure' functional.
everyone, I've started working yesterday on the Euler Project in Clojure and I have a problem with one of my solutions I cannot figure out.
I have this function:
(defn find-max-palindrom-in-range [beg end]
(reduce max
(loop [n beg result []]
(if (>= n end)
result
(recur (inc n)
(concat result
(filter #(is-palindrom? %)
(map #(* n %) (range beg end)))))))))
I try to run it like this:
(find-max-palindrom-in-range 100 1000)
and I get this exception:
java.lang.Integer cannot be cast to clojure.lang.IFn
[Thrown class java.lang.ClassCastException]
which I presume means that at some place I'm trying to evaluate an Integer as a function. I however cannot find this place and what puzzles me more is that everything works if I simply evaluate it like this:
(reduce max
(loop [n 100 result []]
(if (>= n 1000)
result
(recur (inc n)
(concat result
(filter #(is-palindrom? %)
(map #(* n %) (range 100 1000))))))))
(I've just stripped down the function definition and replaced the parameters with constants)
Thanks in advance for your help and sorry that I probably bother you with idiotic mistake on my part. Btw I'm using Clojure 1.1 and the newest SLIME from ELPA.
Edit: Here is the code to is-palindrom?. I've implemented it as a text property of the number, not a numeric one.
(defn is-palindrom? [n]
(loop [num (String/valueOf n)]
(cond (not (= (first num) (last num))) false
(<= (.length num) 1) true
:else (recur (.substring num 1 (dec (.length num)))))))
The code works at my REPL (1.1). I'd suggest that you paste it back at yours and try again -- perhaps you simply mistyped something?
Having said that, you could use this as an opportunity to make the code simpler and more obviously correct. Some low-hanging fruit (don't read if you think it could take away from your Project Euler fun, though with your logic already written down I think it shouldn't):
You don't need to wrap is-palindrome? in an anonymous function to pass it to filter. Just write (filter is-palindrome? ...) instead.
That loop in is-palindrome? is pretty complex. Moreover, it's not particularly efficient (first and last both make a seq out of the string first, then last needs to traverse all of it). It would be simpler and faster to (require '[clojure.contrib.str-utils2 :as str]) and use (= num (str/reverse num)).
Since I mentioned efficiency, using concat in this manner is a tad dangerous -- it creates a lazy seq, which might blow up if you pile up two many levels of laziness (this will not matter in the context of Euler 4, but it's good to keep it in mind). If you really need to extend vectors to the right, prefer into.
To further simplify things, you could consider breaking them apart into a function to filter a given sequence so that only palindromes remain and a separate function to return all products of two three-digit numbers. The latter can be accomplished with e.g.
(for [f (range 100 1000)
s (range 100 1000)
:when (<= f s)] ; avoid duplication of effort
(* f s))