How to make reduce more readable in Clojure? - clojure

Question

A reduce call has its f argument first. Visually speaking, this is often the biggest part of the form.
e.g.
(reduce
(fn [[longest current] x]
(let [tail (last current)
next-seq (if (or (not tail) (> x tail))
(conj current x)
[x])
new-longest (if (> (count next-seq) (count longest))
next-seq
longest)]
[new-longest next-seq]))
[[][]]
col))
The problem is, the val argument (in this case [[][]]) and col argument come afterward, below, and it's a long way for your eyes to travel to match those with the parameters of f.
It would look more readable to me if it were in this order instead:
(reduceb val col
(fn [x y]
...))
Should I implement this macro, or am I approaching this entirely wrong in the first place?

Answer 1

You certainly shouldn't write that macro, since it is easily written as a function instead. I'm not super keen on writing it as a function, either, though; if you really want to pair the reduce with its last two args, you could write:
(-> (fn [x y]
...)
(reduce init coll))
Personally when I need a large function like this, I find that a comma actually serves as a good visual anchor, and makes it easier to tell that two forms are on that last line:
(reduce (fn [x y]
...)
init, coll)
Better still is usually to not write such a large reduce in the first place. Here you're combining at least two steps into one rather large and difficult step, by trying to find all at once the longest decreasing subsequence. Instead, try splitting the collection up into decreasing subsequences, and then take the largest one.
(defn decreasing-subsequences [xs]
(lazy-seq
(cond (empty? xs) []
(not (next xs)) (list xs)
:else (let [[x & [y :as more]] xs
remainder (decreasing-subsequences more)]
(if (> y x)
(cons [x] remainder)
(cons (cons x (first remainder)) (rest remainder)))))))
Then you can replace your reduce with:
(apply max-key count (decreasing-subsequences xs))
Now, the lazy function is not particularly shorter than your reduce, but it is doing one single thing, which means it can be understood more easily; also, it has a name (giving you a hint as to what it's supposed to do), and it can be reused in contexts where you're looking for some other property based on decreasing subsequences, not just the longest. You can even reuse it more often than that, if you replace the > in (> y x) with a function parameter, allowing you to split up into subsequences based on any predicate. Plus, as mentioned it is lazy, so you can use it in situations where a reduce of any sort would be impossible.
Speaking of ease of understanding, as you can see I misunderstood what your function is supposed to do when reading it. I'll leave as an exercise for you the task of converting this to strictly-increasing subsequences, where it looked to me like you were computing decreasing subsequences.

Answer 2

You don't have to use reduce or recursion to get the descending (or ascending) sequences. Here we are returning all the descending sequences in order from longest to shortest:
(def in [3 2 1 0 -1 2 7 6 7 6 5 4 3 2])
(defn descending-sequences [xs]
(->> xs
(partition 2 1)
(map (juxt (fn [[x y]] (> x y)) identity))
(partition-by first)
(filter ffirst)
(map #(let [xs' (mapcat second %)]
(take-nth 2 (cons (first xs') xs'))))
(sort-by (comp - count))))
(descending-sequences in)
;;=> ((7 6 5 4 3 2) (3 2 1 0 -1) (7 6))
(partition 2 1) gives every possible comparison and partition-by allows you to mark out the runs of continuous decreases. At this point you can already see the answer and the rest of the code is removing the baggage that is no longer needed.
If you want the ascending sequences instead then you only need to change the < to a >:
;;=> ((-1 2 7) (6 7))
If, as in the question, you only want the longest sequence then put a first as the last function call in the thread last macro. Alternatively replace the sort-by with:
(apply max-key count)
For maximum readability you can name the operations:
(defn greatest-continuous [op xs]
(let [op-pair? (fn [[x y]] (op x y))
take-every-second #(take-nth 2 (cons (first %) %))
make-canonical #(take-every-second (apply concat %))]
(->> xs
(partition 2 1)
(partition-by op-pair?)
(filter (comp op-pair? first))
(map make-canonical)
(apply max-key count))))

Answer 3

I feel your pain...they can be hard to read.
I see 2 possible improvements. The simplest is to write a wrapper similar to the Plumatic Plumbing defnk style:
(fnk-reduce { :fn (fn [state val] ... <new state value>)
:init []
:coll some-collection } )
so the function call has a single map arg, where each of the 3 pieces is labelled & can come in any order in the map literal.
Another possibility is to just extract the reducing fn and give it a name. This can be either internal or external to the code expression containing the reduce:
(let [glommer (fn [state value] (into state value)) ]
(reduce glommer #{} some-coll))
or possibly
(defn glommer [state value] (into state value))
(reduce glommer #{} some-coll))
As always, anything that increases clarity is preferred. If you haven't noticed already, I'm a big fan of Martin Fowler's idea of Introduce Explaining Variable refactoring. :)

Answer 4

I will apologize in advance for posting a longer solution to something where you wanted more brevity/clarity.
We are in the new age of clojure transducers and it appears a bit that your solution was passing the "longest" and "current" forward for record-keeping. Rather than passing that state forward, a stateful transducer would do the trick.
(def longest-decreasing
(fn [rf]
(let [longest (volatile! [])
current (volatile! [])
tail (volatile! nil)]
(fn
([] (rf))
([result] (transduce identity rf result))
([result x] (do (if (or (nil? #tail) (< x #tail))
(if (> (count (vswap! current conj (vreset! tail x)))
(count #longest))
(vreset! longest #current))
(vreset! current [(vreset! tail x)]))
#longest)))))))
Before you dismiss this approach, realize that it just gives you the right answer and you can do some different things with it:
(def coll [2 1 10 9 8 40])
(transduce longest-decreasing conj coll) ;; => [10 9 8]
(transduce longest-decreasing + coll) ;; => 27
(reductions (longest-decreasing conj) [] coll) ;; => ([] [2] [2 1] [2 1] [2 1] [10 9 8] [10 9 8])
Again, I know that this may appear longer but the potential to compose this with other transducers might be worth the effort (not sure if my airity 1 breaks that??)

Answer 5

I believe that iterate can be a more readable substitute for reduce. For example here is the iteratee function that iterate will use to solve this problem:
(defn step-state-hof [op]
(fn [{:keys [unprocessed current answer]}]
(let [[x y & more] unprocessed]
(let [next-current (if (op x y)
(conj current y)
[y])
next-answer (if (> (count next-current) (count answer))
next-current
answer)]
{:unprocessed (cons y more)
:current next-current
:answer next-answer}))))
current is built up until it becomes longer than answer, in which case a new answer is created. Whenever the condition op is not satisfied we start again building up a new current.
iterate itself returns an infinite sequence, so needs to be stopped when the iteratee has been called the right number of times:
(def in [3 2 1 0 -1 2 7 6 7 6 5 4 3 2])
(->> (iterate (step-state-hof >) {:unprocessed (rest in)
:current (vec (take 1 in))})
(drop (- (count in) 2))
first
:answer)
;;=> [7 6 5 4 3 2]
Often you would use a drop-while or take-while to short circuit just when the answer has been obtained. We could so that here however there is no short circuiting required as we know in advance that the inner function of step-state-hof needs to be called (- (count in) 1) times. That is one less than the count because it is processing two elements at a time. Note that first is forcing the final call.

Answer 6

I wanted this order for the form:
reduce
val, col
f
I was able to figure out that this technically satisfies my requirements:
> (apply reduce
(->>
[0 [1 2 3 4]]
(cons
(fn [acc x]
(+ acc x)))))
10
But it's not the easiest thing to read.
This looks much simpler:
> (defn reduce< [val col f]
(reduce f val col))
nil
> (reduce< 0 [1 2 3 4]
(fn [acc x]
(+ acc x)))
10
(< is shorthand for "parameters are rotated left"). Using reduce<, I can see what's being passed to f by the time my eyes get to the f argument, so I can just focus on reading the f implementation (which may get pretty long). Additionally, if f does get long, I no longer have to visually check the indentation of the val and col arguments to determine that they belong to the reduce symbol way farther up. I personally think this is more readable than binding f to a symbol before calling reduce, especially since fn can still accept a name for clarity.
This is a general solution, but the other answers here provide many good alternative ways to solve the specific problem I gave as an example.