I am just learning the language and I've got a simple question. Why does this work (constructs {:key "value"}):
(#(assoc {} :key %) "value")
But this doesn't:
(#({:key %}) "value")
ArityException Wrong number of args (0) passed to: PersistentArrayMap clojure.lang.AFn.throwArity (AFn.java:429)
On Python the latter syntax is perfectly valid:
> (lambda v: {'key': v})('value')
{'key': 'value'}
edit: thanks for great answers, it is apparent I need to stop thinking # as equivalent to lambda in Python.
#(f %) is expanded by the reader into (fn [%] (f %). Likewise, #({:key %}) is expanded into (fn [%] ({:key %}). The python equivalent of this would be lambda v: {'key': v}(), which has the exact same problem as the Clojure version.
What you are looking for is something equivalent to (fn [v] {:key v}). If you really want to use #(...) notation, you could use #(do {:key %}).
Incidentally, I personally never use #(...). I think it's more difficult to grok (as examples such as this evidence), and is only very slightly more compact than an equivalent fn form. Then there's also the limitation that #(...) forms can not be nested.
That is the limitation of #() reader. fn will work fine.
user=> ((fn [x] {:key x}) "value")
{:key "value"}
Please take a look at the document Anonymous function literal (#())
{:key %} is a PersistentArrayMap. You have it in the "verb position" in your function call. You need a Clojure method of some type in there to avoid that error, as you can see in your first (working) example.
Related
I'm using ring-cors and trying to pass a cors-policy for the (wrap-cors) function. This is what my code looks like:
(def cors-policy
{:access-control-allow-origin [#"http://localhost:8080"]
:access-control-allow-methods [:get :put :post]})
(def dev-handler (-> #'japi/routes
wrap-reload
wrap-params
(wrap-cors cors-policy) ;; <- Here
wrap-json-response
(wrap-defaults api-defaults)
push-state/handle))
This results in an error:
No value supplied for key: {:access-control-allow-origin
#{"http://localhost:8080"}, :access-control-allow-methods #{:get :post :put}}
Looking at the source code for (wrap-cors) it looks like the error is coming from trying to apply (hash-map) to my cors-policy map. It seems like I cannot pass a map definition but instead I have to pass the keys/values explicitly when calling (wrap-cors). Any ideas to work around this?
I've tried (apply hash-map cors-policy) in the repl and that works fine, however when passing a dummy handler such as (wrap-cors identity cors-policy) this again results in the same error.
Edit: cfrick's answer is correct, note however that I had to remove shadow-cljs' (push-state/handle) handler at the end of my dev-handler definition for my setup to work.
The wrapper uses a "pattern" that is sometimes seen and focuses on
"human consumption" of the function. It takes the "rest" of the
arguments and turns the pairs of it into a map. This is already "meh"
for humans and is utterly bad for machines (e.g. to pass as arguments).
You have to do the call it like this:
(wrap-cors $handler :a 1 :b 2)
So the easiest way from here would be:
(def cors-policy
[:a 1
:b 2])
(apply wrap-cors $handler cors-policy)
Or if you want to stick with the map (IMHO a good approach), you have to
flatten the map beforehand. e.g.
(apply wrap-cors $handler (into [] cat cors-policy))
But with the use of the threading macro -> this becomes harder to do
now (-> is just a macro and the resulting code would be (apply $handler wrap-cors ...) which is unintended.
So at this point I'd add my own defn that just takes the handler
again. E.g. something like
(defn cors-wrapper
[handler config-map]
(apply wrap-cors handler (into [] cat config-map)))
I am trying to print the documentation for all functions in a given namespace by invoking the following expression in a REPL:
(doseq
[f (dir-fn 'clojure.repl)]
(doc f))
However the invocation of this expression returns nil without printing the documentation to the REPL. I know this might have to do with doc being a macro, but I'm a Clojure novice and am not entirely sure how to understand the problem.
Why does this expression return nil without printing the documentation?
How can this expression be modified so that it prints the documentation for each function in a given namespace?
Thanks!
Update: Combined both provided answers:
(defn ns-docs [ns']
(doseq [[symbol var] (ns-interns ns')]
(newline)
(println symbol)
(print " ")
(println (:doc (meta var)))))
(ns-docs 'clojure.repl)
I would, instead, start here:
The Clojure CheatSheet
ClojureDocs.org
Clojure-Doc.org (similar name, but different)
The API & Reference sections at Clojure.org
Note that doc is in the namespace clojure.repl, which reflects its intended usage (by a human in a repl). Here is some code that will also iterate on a namespace & print doc strings (using a different technique):
(doseq [[fn-symbol fn-var] (ns-interns 'demo.core)]
(newline)
(println fn-symbol)
(println (:doc (meta fn-var))))
where demo.core is the namespace of interest.
Note that ns-interns gives you both a symbol and var like:
fn-symbol => <#clojure.lang.Symbol -main>
fn-var => <#clojure.lang.Var #'demo.core/-main>
The meta function has lots of other info you may want to use someday:
(meta fn-var) =>
<#clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap
{ :arglists ([& args]),
:doc "The Main Man!",
:line 9, :column 1,
:file "demo/core.clj",
:name -main,
:ns #object[clojure.lang.Namespace 0x14c35a06 "demo.core"]}>
While this probably won't help you with answering your question, the problem of evaluating macro's comes up a lot when you are learning Clojure.
Macros are responsible for the evaluation of their arguments. In this case clojure.repl/doc will ignore the current lexical context and assume that the symbol f that you're giving it is the name of a function you want to see the documentation for. It does this because it's intended to be used at the REPL, and is assuming you wouldn't want to type quotes all the time.
As f doesn't exist, it prints nothing. Then doseq returns nil, since it exists to do something for side effects only - hence starting in do. In order to pass an argument to a macro that refuses to respect the lexical context like this, you need to write the code for each element in the list.
You can do this by hand, or by constructing the code as data, and passing it to eval to execute. You can do this in an imperative style, using doseq:
(doseq [f (ns-interns 'clojure.repl)]
(eval `(doc ~(symbol "clojure.repl" (str (first f))))))
or in a slightly more Clojurey way (which will allow you to see the code that it would execute by removing eval from the end and running it at the REPL):
(->> (ns-interns 'clojure.repl)
(map #(list 'clojure.repl/doc (symbol "clojure.repl" (str (first %)))))
(cons `do)
eval)
In both of these we use quote and syntax-quote to construct some code from the list of symbols reflected from the namespace, and pass it to eval to actually execute it. This page on Clojure's weird characters should point you in the right direction for understanding what's going on here.
This an example of why you shouldn't write macro's, unless you've got no other options. Macro's do not compose, and are often difficult to work with. For a more in depth discussion, Fogus's talk and Christophe Grand's talk are both good talks.
Why does this expression return nil without printing the documentation?
Because the doc macro is receiving the symbol f from your loop, instead of a function symbol directly.
How can this expression be modified so that it prints the documentation for each function in a given namespace?
(defn ns-docs [ns']
(let [metas (->> (ns-interns ns') (vals) (map meta) (sort-by :name))]
(for [m metas :when (:doc m)] ;; you could filter here if you want fns only
(select-keys m [:name :doc]))))
(ns-docs 'clojure.repl)
=>
({:name apropos,
:doc "Given a regular expression or stringable thing, return a seq of all
public definitions in all currently-loaded namespaces that match the
str-or-pattern."}
...
)
Then you can print those maps/strings if you want.
Consider the following macro:
(defmacro somemacro []
(list 'let ['somevar "Value"] 'somevar))
Expanding it yields the following result:
(macroexpand '(somemacro))
Result:
(let* [somevar "Value"] somevar)
I have two questions about let* (with the asterisk):
What does it mean? (In particular: is it documented somewhere?)
Why is the macro not expanded with the 'normal' let? (I.e., let without the asterisk.) Both yield the same result (in my experimentation). Is there a counter example?
Unluckily I could not find any 'official' documentation about let*, that's why I'm asking here.
Sources I've already considered:
(doc let*) ; --> nil
(source let*) ; --> source not found
https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core --> I see not let* here
(although there is e.g. list*)
https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/let --> only mentioned once in
a comment, that is not totally clear to me:
Nota Bene: let in Clojure is like let* in Scheme -- each init-expr has access to the preceding binding forms. (There is also a let*, but it is more or less let without destructuring, and in fact is the underlying implementation.)
LET versus LET* in Common Lisp
--> this question is about common lisp, but maybe it's the same in Clojure?
This answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5084339/3398271
In Clojure it basically means "foo* is like foo, but somehow different, and you probably want foo". In other words, it means that the author of that code couldn't come up with a better name for the second function, so they just slapped a star on it.
--> Is this the case for let and let*? But if so, still the question remains, what is exactly the difference?
What is the difference between let and let* in Scheme? --> Is this the same in Clojure?
let* is an internal implementation detail. let is a macro implemented in terms of let*. https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/clojure-1.7.0/src/clj/clojure/core.clj#L4301
The macro let adds parameter destructuring to let*. This is the standard pattern for xyz and xyz* in Clojure, with the * version not being documented. An exception being list and list*.
I thought I would add that the reason why macroexpand returns let* instead of let can be found in the documentation of macroexpand:
Repeatedly calls macroexpand-1 on form until it no longer
represents a macro form, then returns it.
So what happens is the first call of macroexpand-1 returns (let [somevar "Value"] somevar), and the second expands let into let*.
Indeed,
user=> (println (clojure.string/join "\n" (take 3 (iterate macroexpand-1 '(somemacro)))))
(somemacro)
(let [somevar "Value"] somevar)
(let* [somevar "Value"] somevar)
nil
If you were to use destructuring in your macro, the output would be more interesting:
user=> (defmacro destructuring-macro [] `(let [[x y z] [:x :y :z]] y))
#'user/destructuring-macro
user=> (println (clojure.string/join "\n" (take 3 (iterate macroexpand-1 '(destructuring-macro)))))
(destructuring-macro)
(clojure.core/let [[testing.core/x testing.core/y testing.core/z] [:x :y :z]] testing.core/y)
(let* [vec__8356 [:x :y :z] x (clojure.core/nth vec__8356 0 nil) y (clojure.core/nth vec__8356 1 nil) z (clojure.core/nth vec__8356 2 nil)] testing.core/y)
nil
Notice that let is fully qualified by the syntax quote, because it is not a special form (even though its documentation says it is). The underlying special form is let*, which is not fully qualified by the syntax quote.
I am attempting to iterate over a vector of "lines" in Clojure. Essentially, it looks like:
[{:start {:x 1 :y 3 :z 4}, :end {:x 3 :y 7 :z 0}}, ...]
I would like to apply a function that prints each of these "lines" onto a new line, ala:
(map #(println %) vector-of-lines)
but that doesn't appear to call the function. Should I not be using the "map" function in this instance?
(dorun (map println vector-of-lines))
dorun forces the evaluation of the lazy sequence, but also discards the individual results of each of item in the sequence. This is perfect for sequences that are purely for side-effects which is exactly what you want here.
map is lazy and won't realize results unless you ask for them. If you want to perform a side effect for each element in a sequence, and don't care about the return value, use doseq:
;; returns nil, prints each line
(doseq [line vector-of-lines]
(println line))
If you do care about the return value, use (doall):
;; returns a sequence of nils, prints each line
(doall (map println vector-of-lines))
To add to Justin's answer, doseq is a macro, and thus carries with it all the limitations of macros.
I would write a foreach function that internally uses doseq.
user=> (defn foreach [f xs] (doseq [x xs] (f x)))
#'user/foreach
user=> (foreach println [11 690 3 45])
11
690
3
45
nil
Since Clojure 1.7 there is run! which does what you want. The naming of this method may be related to the workaround with dorun and map. Be careful with using map for such occasions. Suppose that you make another call to map inside your function that you passed in. That will require walking the sequence as well. Thus, you will need to use dorun twice.
Given a list of names for variables, I want to set those variables to an expression.
I tried this:
(doall (for [x ["a" "b" "c"]] (def (symbol x) 666)))
...but this yields the error
java.lang.Exception: First argument to def must be a Symbol
Can anyone show me the right way to accomplish this, please?
Clojure's "intern" function is for this purpose:
(doseq [x ["a" "b" "c"]]
(intern *ns* (symbol x) 666))
(doall (for [x ["a" "b" "c"]] (eval `(def ~(symbol x) 666))))
In response to your comment:
There are no macros involved here. eval is a function that takes a list and returns the result of executing that list as code. ` and ~ are shortcuts to create a partially-quoted list.
` means the contents of the following lists shall be quoted unless preceded by a ~
~ the following list is a function call that shall be executed, not quoted.
So ``(def ~(symbol x) 666)is the list containing the symboldef, followed by the result of executingsymbol xfollowed by the number of the beast. I could as well have written(eval (list 'def (symbol x) 666))` to achieve the same effect.
Updated to take Stuart Sierra's comment (mentioning clojure.core/intern) into account.
Using eval here is fine, but it may be interesting to know that it is not necessary, regardless of whether the Vars are known to exist already. In fact, if they are known to exist, then I think the alter-var-root solution below is cleaner; if they might not exist, then I wouldn't insist on my alternative proposition being much cleaner, but it seems to make for the shortest code (if we disregard the overhead of three lines for a function definition), so I'll just post it for your consideration.
If the Var is known to exist:
(alter-var-root (resolve (symbol "foo")) (constantly new-value))
So you could do
(dorun
(map #(-> %1 symbol resolve (alter-var-root %2))
["x" "y" "z"]
[value-for-x value-for-y value-for z]))
(If the same value was to be used for all Vars, you could use (repeat value) for the final argument to map or just put it in the anonymous function.)
If the Vars might need to be created, then you can actually write a function to do this (once again, I wouldn't necessarily claim this to be cleaner than eval, but anyway -- just for the interest of it):
(defn create-var
;; I used clojure.lang.Var/intern in the original answer,
;; but as Stuart Sierra has pointed out in a comment,
;; a Clojure built-in is available to accomplish the same
;; thing
([sym] (intern *ns* sym))
([sym val] (intern *ns* sym val)))
Note that if a Var turns out to have already been interned with the given name in the given namespace, then this changes nothing in the single argument case or just resets the Var to the given new value in the two argument case. With this, you can solve the original problem like so:
(dorun (map #(create-var (symbol %) 666) ["x" "y" "z"]))
Some additional examples:
user> (create-var 'bar (fn [_] :bar))
#'user/bar
user> (bar :foo)
:bar
user> (create-var 'baz)
#'user/baz
user> baz
; Evaluation aborted. ; java.lang.IllegalStateException:
; Var user/baz is unbound.
; It does exist, though!
;; if you really wanted to do things like this, you'd
;; actually use the clojure.contrib.with-ns/with-ns macro
user> (binding [*ns* (the-ns 'quux)]
(create-var 'foobar 5))
#'quux/foobar
user> quux/foobar
5
Evaluation rules for normal function calls are to evaluate all the items of the list, and call the first item in the list as a function with the rest of the items in the list as parameters.
But you can't make any assumptions about the evaluation rules for special forms or macros. A special form or the code produced by a macro call could evaluate all the arguments, or never evaluate them, or evaluate them multiple times, or evaluate some arguments and not others. def is a special form, and it doesn't evaluate its first argument. If it did, it couldn't work. Evaluating the foo in (def foo 123) would result in a "no such var 'foo'" error most of the time (if foo was already defined, you probably wouldn't be defining it yourself).
I'm not sure what you're using this for, but it doesn't seem very idiomatic. Using def anywhere but at the toplevel of your program usually means you're doing something wrong.
(Note: doall + for = doseq.)