I have a series of functions that all do different things but are passed the same data. Let's say I have the following as a parameter vector.
[{:keys [x y vx vy x-min x-max y-min y-max] :or {x-min 0 x-max c-width y-min 0 y-max c-height}}]
Basically the type of thing you do not want to have to repeat more than once. One thought I had was to do something like.
(def func-args [x y z])
(defn func func-args (+ x y z))
Then I could re-use func-args if I had a similar function. However the first line of the previous example throws an error that symbol x cannot be resolved.
Is there a way to leave vector members as symbols?
Is there a more idiomatic way to accomplish function parameter code bloat reduction than the method I am suggesting?
Quoting a vector will leave it's symbols unevaluated, however defn expects a literal vector in the definition, so this won't work like you're suggesting.
The easiest way to do this is to create a macro. Macros let you create your own syntax. This kind of (anaphoric) macro is discouraged in Clojure as it's easy to run into problems with macros that create symbols for you.
Something like:
(def cheight 100)
(def cwidth 100)
(defmacro defx [name & body]
`(defn ~name [{:keys [~'x ~'y ~'vx ~'vy ~'x-min ~'x-max ~'y-min ~'y-max]
:or {~'x-min 0 ~'x-max ~'c-width ~'y-min 0 ~'y-max ~'c-height}}]
~#body))
(defx func (+ x y))
(func {:x 1 :y 2}) ;; 3
Here is another way of doing it that accepts the function args spec vector as a parameter to the macro:
(defmacro defn-args
[fn-name fn-args & forms]
`(defn ~fn-name ~(eval fn-args) ~#forms))
(def square-args '[x] ) ; must quote [x] here
(defn-args my-square square-args (* x x))
(my-square 3)
;=> 9
Related
How does [] work in a function in Clojure?
(def square (fn [x] (* x x)))
(square 10) ; -> 100
As I understand from the above, we pass 10 in the place of x. Shouldn't I be able to do the following?
(def square (fn [x y] (* x y)))
(square 5 10) ; -> 50
In Clojure, [] is used to represent the argument list. That is to say, the anonymous function defined in square takes a single argument and multiplies it against itself.
You can absolutely extend that, but you're probably going to want to change the name of the function to better reflect what it's actually doing instead.
(def multiply (fn [x y] (* x y)))
Some comments on Makoto's answer.
You don't need to name a function in order to use it:
((fn [x] (* x x)) 10) ; 100
((fn [x y] (* x y)) 5 10) ; 50
Anonymous functions often crop up as arguments to higher order functions such as map.
Clojure (and other Lisps) separate the act of making a function as a thing from the act of naming it. def does the naming. A subsequent def for a name erases/obliterates/overwrites an earlier one.
Nor do you need to explicate a function in order to name it. Instead of
(def multiply (fn [x y] (* x y)))
just write
(def multiply *)
There's a lovely explanation of this (for Common Lisp) in Paul Graham's On Lisp.
I have a function that I basically yanked from a discussion in the Clojure google group, that takes a collection and a list of functions of arbitrary length, and filters it to return a new collection containing all elements of the original list for which at least one of the functions evaluates to true:
(defn multi-any-filter [coll & funcs]
(filter #(some true? ((apply juxt funcs) %)) coll))
I'm playing around with making a generalizable solution to Project Euler Problem 1, so I'm using it like this:
(def f3 (fn [x] (= 0 (mod x 3))))
(def f5 (fn [x] (= 0 (mod x 5))))
(reduce + (multi-any-filter (range 1 1000) f3 f5))
Which gives the correct answer.
However, I want to modify it so I can pass ints to it instead of functions, like
(reduce + (multi-any-filter (range 1 1000) 3 5))
where I can replace 3 and 5 with an arbitrary number of ints and do the function wrapping of (=0 (mod x y)) as an anonymous function inside the multi-any-filter function.
Unfortunately this is past the limit of my Clojure ability. I'm thinking that I would need to do something with map to the list of args, but I'm not sure how to get map to return a list of functions, each of which is waiting for another argument. Clojure doesn't seem to support currying the way I learned how to do it in other functional languages. Perhaps I need to use partial in the right spot, but I'm not quite sure how.
In other words, I want to be able to pass an arbitrary number of arguments (that are not functions) and then have each of those arguments get wrapped in the same function, and then that list of functions gets passed to juxt in place of funcs in my multi-any-filter function above.
Thanks for any tips!
(defn evenly-divisible? [x y]
(zero? (mod x y)))
(defn multi-any-filter [col & nums]
(let [partials (map #(fn [x] (evenly-divisible? x %)) nums)
f (apply juxt partials)]
(filter #(some true? (f %)) col)))
I coudn't use partial because it applies the arg in the first position of the fn. We want it in the second position of evenly-divisible? We could re-arrange in evenly-divisible? but then it would not really look correct when using it standalone.
user=> (reduce + (multi-any-filter (range 1 1000) 3 5))
233168
the other day I was trying to come up with an example of closure in Clojure. I came up with and example I had seen before and thought it was appropriate.
Alas, I was told it was not a good one and that I should provide something with let.
Can anyone shed some light?
(defn pow [x n] (apply * (repeat x n)))
(defn sq [y] (pow y 2))
(defn qb [y] (pow y 3))
A closure is a function that has access to some named value/variable outside its own scope, so from a higher scope surrounding the function when it was created (this excludes function arguments and local named values created within the function). Your examples do not qualify, because every function just uses named values from their own scopes.
Example:
(def foo
(let [counter (atom 0)]
(fn [] (do (swap! counter inc) #counter))))
(foo) ;;=> 1
(foo) ;;=> 2
(foo) ;;=> 3, etc
Now foo is a function that returns the value of an atom that is outside its scope. Because the function still holds a reference to that atom, the atom will not be garbage-collected as long as foo is needed.
Function that returns function i.e higher order functions are nice examples of closure.
(defn pow [n]
(fn [x] (apply * (repeat n x))))
(def sq (pow 2))
(def qb (pow 3))
Another example of closure. There are two functions that share the same environment (state).
(defn create-object [init-state]
(let [state (atom init-state)]
{:getter (fn []
#state)
:setter (fn [new-val]
(reset! state new-val))}))
(defn test-it []
(let [{:keys [setter getter]} (create-object :init-value)]
(println (getter))
(setter :new-value)
(println (getter))))
(test-it)
=> :init-value
:new-value
I wanted to have something that setup constant value(s) that are to be used each time.
(def myran
(let [constrand (rand)]
(fn [n] (* n constrand))))
(myran 3)
2.7124521745892096
(myran 1)
0.9041507248630699
(myran 3)
2.7124521745892096
This will only set a value for "constrand" once. This is a very contrived example, but I wanted to be able to do something like:
This is from: JavaScript: The Good Parts
it seem like clojure's let is sequential and would correspond to a scheme let* .
Does clojure have an unsequential binding mechanism like scheme's let?
I believe binding macro is parallel not sequential.
See: http://clojuredocs.org/clojure_core/clojure.core/binding
letfn is a parallel binding form for functions that exists to allow people to write mutually recursive local functions. It's not quite as general as you seek though it can be used in a pinch.
user> (letfn [(a [] 4)
(b [] c)
(c [] a)]
(a))
4
Binding can be used so long as you are assigning values to things in vars and want dynamic scoping
user> (def ^:dynamic x 4)
#'user/x
user> (defn foo [] x)
#'user/foo
user> (binding [x 8] (+ x (foo)))
16 ; the value of x that gets called by foo is modified by the caller
; yielding 16 instead of 12
user> (binding [x 8 a 7] (+ x (foo)))
; Evaluation aborted.
Unable to resolve var: a in this context
if you try to use parallel bindings the dynamic scoping will give different results than let* would in Scheme
user> (def ^:dynamic a 2)
#'user/a
user> (binding [x 8 a 7] (+ x a))
15
user> (binding [x 8 a (+ x 2)] (+ x a))
14 ; this would be 18 if the binding of x to 8 had been used
; instead the root value of 4 was used.
In general It is most common to bind sequentially or use nested lets if required.
binding doesn't give you the same capability as a parallel let because it depends on the existence of bindings. As mentioned letfn will work as long as you don't mind wrapping your values in functions. Another solution is to write a parallel let using a macro:
(defmacro letp
[bindings & exprs]
(let [bindings (partition 2 bindings)
vars (->> bindings (map first) vec)
values (->> bindings (map second))]
`((fn ~vars ~#exprs)
~#values)))
So the following holds:
(def a 7)
(letp [a 5 b a] b)
;;=> 7
I have the following defined in clojure:
(def ax '(fn x [] (+ 1 z)))
(let [z 4]
(str (eval ax))
)
:but instead of returning :
5
: I get :
Unable to resolve symbol: z in this context
: I have tried changing "let" to "binding" but this still does not work. Does anyone know what is wrong here?
Making the smallest possible changes to your code to get it to work:
(def ^:dynamic z nil)
(def ax '(fn x [] (+ 1 z)))
(binding [z 4]
(str ((eval ax)))
)
The two changes are defining z as a dynamic var, so that the name resolves, and putting another paren around (eval ax), because ax is returning a function.
A little bit nicer is to change the definition of ax:
(def ^:dynamic z nil)
(def ax '(+ 1 z))
(binding [z 4]
(str (eval ax))
)
So evaluating ax immediately gets the result you want, rather than returning a function that does it.
Nicer again is to skip the eval:
(def ^:dynamic z nil)
(defn ax [] (+ 1 z))
(binding [z 5]
(str (ax))
)
But best of all is to not have z floating around as a var, and pass it in to ax as Mimsbrunnr and Joost suggested.
The short answer is don't use eval. You almost never need to, and certainly not here.
For example:
user> (defn ax [z]
(+ 1 z))
#'user/ax
user> (let [f #(ax 4)]
(f))
5
Right so I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to do here.
I mean this works, though it's not using eval it's defining x to be the function (fn [ x ] (+ x 1))
> (def x #(+ 1 %))
#'sandbox102711/x
> (x 4)
5
In the end, eval is not something you should be using. As a Lisp Cljoure's support for lambda abstraction and macros ( see the fn definition above ) should remove the need.