My question is whether given a hashmap
(def my-map {'x 1 'y 2 'z})
I can apply it to an anonymous function,
(fn [x y z] (+ x (* y z))
so that the arguments match the keys in the map, somthing like
(apply-ish my-map (fn [x y z] (+ x (* y z)))
Is there an easy fix to this problem? I feel like there is but I cant figure it out.
You can use map destructuring:
user> (def my-map {'x 1 'y 2 'z 3})
#'user/my-map
user> ((fn [{x 'x y 'y z 'z}] (+ x (* y z))) my-map)
7
You can simplify a bit with this form of desctructuring:
user> ((fn [{:syms [x y z]}] (+ x (* y z))) my-map)
7
or if you use keywords for your map keys:
user> (def my-map2 {:x 1 :y 2 :z 3})
#'user/my-map2
user> ((fn [{:keys [x y z]}] (+ x (* y z))) my-map2)
7
personally, i would not modify the function to accept the map as the arg, since it makes the function itself way less generic. The alternative (and idiomatic i guess, for any language) solution is to select needed keys from the map before passing them to function. That is quite easy, since both map and symbol (and keyword too) have function semantics in clojure:
user> (apply f (map my-map ['x 'y 'z]))
;;=> 7
user> (apply f ((juxt 'x 'y 'z) my-map))
;;=> 7
Related
I have been writing some Clojure recently, and I found myself using the following pattern frequently enough:
(let [x (bam)
y (boom)]
{:x x
:y y})
So I went ahead and wrote the following macro:
(defmacro make-keyword-map [& syms]
`(hash-map ~#(mapcat (fn [s] [(keyword (name s)) s]) syms)))
With that, code now looks like:
(let [x (bam)
y (boom)]
(make-keyword-map x y)
Would this sort of macro be considered idiomatic? Or am I doing something wrong, and missing some already established pattern to deal with something of this sort?
Note, that you can also replace all of:
(let [x (bam)
y (boom)]
{:x x
:y y})
with just:
{:x (bam)
:y (boom)}
which will evaluate to the same thing.
If your let expressions depend on one another, then how about a macro like so:
(defmacro make-keyword-map [& let-body]
(let [keywords-vals (flatten (map (juxt keyword identity)
(map first (partition 2 let-body))))]
`(let ~(vec let-body)
(hash-map ~#keywords-vals))))
that way (make-keyword-map x (foo 1) y (bar 2) z (zoom x)) expands to:
(clojure.core/let [x (foo 1) y (bar 2) z (zoom x)]
(clojure.core/hash-map :x x :y y :z z))
So something like this would work:
user=> (defn foo [x] (+ x 1))
#'user/foo
user=> (defn bar [x] (* x 2))
#'user/bar
user=> (defn zoom [x] [(* x 100) "zoom!"])
#'user/zoom
user=> (make-keyword-map x (foo 1) y (bar 2) z (zoom x))
{:z [200 "zoom!"], :y 4, :x 2}
Not sure how idiomatic that is, but it also saves you a let, compared to your original example.
There's an example in the book (P252), it's about the &env in macro, I just don't understand how to get the result{x 1, y 2}
(defmacro spy-env []
(let [ks (keys &env)]
`(prn (zipmap '~ks [~#ks]))))
(let [x 1 y 2]
(spy-env)
(+ x y))
; {x 1, y 2}
;= 3
I tried in the REPL like this:
user=> (defmacro spy-env [] (let [ks (keys &env)] `(prn ~#(keys &env))))
#'user/spy-env
user=> (let [x 1 y 2] (spy-env))
2 1
It's wried.
Expanding the macro would be a great way for you to see how it works, but unfortunately macroexpand-1 doesn't convey the right bindings for &env. This example:
(let [x 1 y 2] (spy-env))
Actually expands out to:
(let [x 1 y 2] (prn (zipmap '(x y) [x y])))
Do you get it? Within the first sequence, x and y are not evaluated, but within the second, they are. So it zips the symbols to whatever they evaluate to. Within that let block, (zipmap '(x y) [x y]) evaluates to {x 1 y 2}.
a) If you try the code of the book it does output the right value
user=> (defmacro spy-env []
#_=> (let [ks (keys &env)]
#_=> `(prn (zipmap '~ks [~#ks]))))
#'user/spy-env
user=> (let [x 1 y 2] (spy-env))
{x 1, y 2}
nil
user=> (let [x 1 y 2]
#_=> (spy-env)
#_=> (+ x y))
{x 1, y 2}
3
b) now your code is different
initial code :
`(prn (zipmap '~ks [~#ks]))
vs
`(prn ~#(keys &env))
with actually #(keys &env) being equal to #ks
The question doesn't really explain what I want to do but I couldn't think of anything else.
I have an empty map in the outer let function in a piece of code, and an integer array.
I want to iterate through the integer array, perform a simple task, and keep appending the resulting map to the variables in the outer variables.
(let [a {} ;outer variables
b {}]
(doseq [x [1 2 3]]
(let [r (merge a {x (* x x)}) ;I want to append this to a
s (merge b {x (+ x x)})] ;and this to b
(println (str "--a--" r "--b--" s)))))
But as soon as I get out of doseq, my a and b vars are still empty. I get that the scope of a and b doesn't extend outside of doseq for it to persist any changes done from within and that they are immutable.
How do I calculate the values of a and b in such cases, please? I tried to extract the functionality of doseq into another function and calling let with:
(let [a (do-that-function)])
etc but even then I couldn't figure out a way to keep track of all the modifications within doseq loop to then send back as a whole.
Am I approaching this in a wrong way?
Thanks
edit
Really, what I'm trying to do is this:
(let [a (doseq [x [1 2 3]] {x (* x x)})]
(println a))
but doseq returns nil so a is going to be nil :-s
All variables in clojure are immutable. If you need a mutable state you should use atoms or refs.
But in your case you can simply switch from doseq to for:
(let [a (for [x [1 2 3]] {x (* x x)})]
(println a))
Here is an example of solving your problem with atoms:
(let [a (atom {})
b (atom {})]
(doseq [x [1 2 3]]
(swap! a assoc x (* x x))
(swap! b assoc x (+ x x)))
(println "a:" #a)
(println "b:" #b))
But you should avoid using mutable state as far as possible:
(let [l [1 2 3]
a (zipmap l (map * l l))
b (zipmap l (map + l l))]
(println "a:" a)
(println "b:" b))
The trick is to think in terms of flows of data adding to existing data making new data, instead of changing past data. For your specific problem, where a data structure is being built, reduce is typically used:
(reduce (fn [result x] (assoc result x (* x x))) {} [1 2 3])
hehe, I just noticed that "reduce" might seem confusing given that it's building something, but the meaning is that a collection of things is "reduced" to one thing. In this case, we give reduce an empty map to begin with, which binds to result in the fn, and each successive mapping over the collection results in a new result, which we add to again with assoc.
You could also say:
(into {} (map (fn [x] [x (* x x)]) [1 2 3]))
In your question you wanted to make multiple things at once from a single collection. Here's one way to do that:
(reduce (fn [[a b] x] [(assoc a x (* x x)) (assoc b x (+ x x))]) [{} {}] [1 2 3])
Here we used destructuring syntax to refer to our two result structures - just make a picture of the data [with [vectors]]. Note that reduce is still only returning one thing - a vector in this case.
And, we could generalize that:
(defn xfn [n fs]
(reduce
(fn [results x] (map (fn [r f] (assoc r x (f x x))) results fs))
(repeat (count fs) {}) (range n)))
=> (xfn 4 [* + -])
({3 9, 2 4, 1 1, 0 0} {3 6, 2 4, 1 2, 0 0} {3 0, 2 0, 1 0, 0 0})
The result is a list of maps. And if you wanted to take intermediate steps in the building of these results, you could change reduce to reductions. Generally, map for transforming collections, reduce for building a single result from a collection.
I would like to know how to increment by X amount a number, in other languages I used to do
foo += 0.1;
but I have not idea how it can be done in Clojure
Variables are immutable in Clojure. So you should not try to change the value of foo, but instead, "create" a new foo:
(def foo2 (+ foo 0.1))
...or, if in a loop, recur with a new value:
(loop [foo 5.0]
(when (< foo 9)
(recur (+ foo 0.1))))
...or, if foo is an atom, swap! it with a new value:
(def foo (atom 5.0))
(swap! foo (partial + 0.1))
I recommend you start by reading the rationale of Clojure.
Blacksad's answer covers defining vars so I would just like to add the other scopes in which you may wish to have a value that is incremented from another value:
within a function's local scope:
user> (defn my-function [x]
(let [y (inc x)
z (+ x y)]
[x y z]))
#'user/my-function
user> (my-function 4)
[4 5 9]
and If you want to build a value incrementally to make the process more clear:
user> (defn my-function [x]
(let [y (inc x)
z (+ x y)
z (+ z 4)
z (* z z)]
[x y z]))
#'user/my-function
user> (my-function 4)
[4 5 169]
This can make the process more presentable, though it is not a "way to get variables back" and is really only useful in limited contexts. This pattern is used in clojure.core's threading macros.
Suppose you have three functions of arity 1, 2 and 3 as below:
(defn I [x] x)
(defn K [x y] x)
(defn S [x y z] (x z (y z)))
Does clojure have an evaluation function or idiom for evaluating:
(I K S I I) as (I (K (S (I (I)))))
returning a parital function of arity 2?
I am considering creating a macro that can take the simple function definitions above and expand them to multi-arity functions that can return partial results. I would not want to create the macro if there is already a built in or idiomatic way to accomplish this.
Here is what the expanded macros would like for the above functions:
(defn I
([x] I x)
([x & more] (apply (I x) more)))
(defn K
([x] (partial K x))
([x y] x)
([x y & more] (apply (K x y) more)))
(defn S
([x] (partial S x))
([x y] (partial S x y))
([x y z] (x z (y z)))
([x y z & more] (apply (S x y z) more)))
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to do, but the comp function is useful for doing this kind of "function chaining" you seem to be talking about. For example:
user> ((comp vec rest list) 1 2 3 4 5)
=> [2 3 4 5]
Which is equivalent to:
user> (vec (rest (list 1 2 3 4 5)))
=> [2 3 4 5]
In your case, if you have the list (I K S I I), and you want to evaluate it as (I (K (S (I (I))))), I would use (reduce comp ...), but you could also use (apply comp ...).
user> ((reduce comp [vec rest list]) 1 2 3 4 5)
=> [2 3 4 5]
user> ((apply comp [vec rest list]) 1 2 3 4 5)
=> [2 3 4 5]
You may also be interested in the -> or ->> macros. These macros nest their arguments sequentially into the next arguments. The -> macro will nest into the first position of the next expression, whereas the ->> macro will nest into the last position of the next expression. If the "next thing" is a function, both will behave the same, and form an expression of (function nested-things-so-far), and continue along.
Really, examples are best:
(-> 1 (+ 10) (- 100) inc)
;//Expands to...
(inc (- (+ 1 10) 100))
;//Evaluating in the REPL...
user> (-> 1 (+ 10) (- 100) inc)
=> -88
(->> 1 (+ 10) (- 100) inc)
;//Expands to...
(inc (- 100 (+ 10 1)))
;//Evaluating in the REPL...
user> (-> 1 (+ 10) (- 100) inc)
=> 90
However, it seems more like you want to do something involving auto-currying (although, again, I don't think I fully understand), and for that I don't know of anything pre-existing built-in way.