Given a collection"
[{:key "key_1" :value "value_1"}, {:key "key_2" :value "value_2"}]
I would like to convert this to:
{"key_1" "value_1" "key_2" "value_2"}
An function to do this would be:
(defn long->wide [xs]
(apply hash-map (flatten (map vals xs))))
I might simplify this using the threading macro:
(defn long->wide [xs]
(->> xs
(map vals)
(flatten)
(apply hash-map)))
This still requires explicit definition of the function argument which I am not doing anything with other than passing to the first function. I might then rewrite this using comp to remove this:
(def long->wide
(comp (partial apply hash-map) flatten (partial map vals)))
This however requires repeated use of partial which to me is a lot of noise in the function.
Is there a some function in clojure that combines comp and ->> so I can create a higher order function without repeated use of partial, and also which out having to create a new function?
Since many of the answers here already don't answer the original question, but
suggest different approaches, I put that one back up too.
I'd go with reduce and destructuring:
(reduce
(fn [m {:keys [key value]}]
(assoc m key value))
{}
[{:key "key_1" :value "value_1"}, {:key "key_2" :value "value_2"}])
Note, that this will also work with string keys (which you mentioned in the comments) (note :strs):
(reduce
(fn [m {:strs [key value]}]
(assoc m key value))
{}
[{"key" "key_1" "value" "value_1"}, {"key" "key_2" "value" "value_2"}])
Another (point-free) version, when using keywords:
(partial (into {} (map (juxt :key :value))))
Since you mentioned in the comments, that you are using values from a DB, there might also be the chance, that you can switch to just return value tuples. Then the whole operation is just:
(into {} [["key_1" "value_1"]["key_2" "value_2"]])
Also note, that the use of vals on a map and expecting "insertion order" is
dangerous. Small maps are ordered only by accident:
user=> (take 3 (zipmap (range 3) (range 3)))
([0 0] [1 1] [2 2])
user=> (take 3 (zipmap (range 100) (range 100)))
([0 0] [65 65] [70 70])
An other alternative to the nice answers is also:
(apply hash-map (mapcat vals [{:key "key_1" :value "value_1"}, {:key "key_2" :value "value_2"}]))
or:
((comp #(apply hash-map %) #(mapcat vals %)) [{:key "key_1" :value "value_1"}, {:key "key_2" :value "value_2"}])
which are exactly the same.
As with clojure, so many ways to solve most problems.
(partial #(reduce (fn [r m] (assoc r (m :key) (m :value)))
{}
%)))
Not sure if the creation of anonymous functions violates your condition or not but this isn't adding functions to the namespace so I thought I'd throw it out there. This also has the benefit of not requiring the keys in the input maps to be keywords as :key and :value can be replaced with values of any type since the map is in the function position. For example:
(partial #(reduce (fn [r m] (assoc r (m "key") (m "value")))
{}
%)))
Related
There is a map containing sequences. The sequences contain items.
I want to remove a given item from any sequence that contains it.
The solution I found does what it should, but I wonder if there is a better
or more elegant way to achieve the same.
my current solution:
(defn remove-item-from-map-value [my-map item]
(apply merge (for [[k v] my-map] {k (remove #(= item %) v)})))
The test describe the expected behaviour:
(require '[clojure.test :as t])
(def my-map {:keyOne ["itemOne"]
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"]})
(defn remove-item-from-map-value [my-map item]
(apply merge (for [[k v] my-map] {k (remove #(= item %) v)})))
(t/is (= (remove-item-from-map-value my-map "unknown-item") my-map))
(t/is (= (remove-item-from-map-value my-map "itemFive") {:keyOne ["itemOne"]
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemSix"]}))
(t/is (= (remove-item-from-map-value my-map "itemThree") {:keyOne ["itemOne"]
:keyTwo ["itemTwo"]
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"]}))
(t/is (= (remove-item-from-map-value my-map "itemOne") {:keyOne []
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"]}))
I'm fairly new to clojure and am interested in different solutions.
So any input is welcome.
I throw in the specter
version for good measure. It keeps the vectors inside the map
and it's really compact.
(setval [MAP-VALS ALL #{"itemFive"}] NONE my-map)
Example
user=> (use 'com.rpl.specter)
nil
user=> (def my-map {:keyOne ["itemOne"]
#_=> :keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]
#_=> :keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"]})
#_=>
#'user/my-map
user=> (setval [MAP-VALS ALL #{"itemFive"}] NONE my-map)
{:keyOne ["itemOne"],
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemSix"],
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]}
user=> (setval [MAP-VALS ALL #{"unknown"}] NONE my-map)
{:keyOne ["itemOne"],
:keyThree ["itemFour" "itemFive" "itemSix"],
:keyTwo ["itemTwo" "itemThree"]}
i would go with something like this:
user> (defn remove-item [my-map item]
(into {}
(map (fn [[k v]] [k (remove #{item} v)]))
my-map))
#'user/remove-item
user> (remove-item my-map "itemFour")
;;=> {:keyOne ("itemOne"),
;; :keyTwo ("itemTwo" "itemThree"),
;; :keyThree ("itemFive" "itemSix")}
you could also make up a handy function map-val performing mapping on map values:
(defn map-val [f data]
(reduce-kv
(fn [acc k v] (assoc acc k (f v)))
{} data))
or shortly like this:
(defn map-val [f data]
(reduce #(update % %2 f) data (keys data)))
user> (map-val inc {:a 1 :b 2})
;;=> {:a 2, :b 3}
(defn remove-item [my-map item]
(map-val (partial remove #{item}) my-map))
user> (remove-item my-map "itemFour")
;;=> {:keyOne ("itemOne"),
;; :keyTwo ("itemTwo" "itemThree"),
;; :keyThree ("itemFive" "itemSix")}
I think your solution is mostly okay, but I would try to avoid the apply merge part, as you can easily recreate a map from a sequence with into. Also, you could also use map instead of for which I think is a little bit more idiomatic in this case as you don't use any of the list comprehension features of for.
(defn remove-item-from-map-value [m item]
(->> m
(map (fn [[k vs]]
{k (remove #(= item %) vs)}))
(into {})))
Another solution much like #leetwinski:
(defn remove-item [m i]
(zipmap (keys m)
(map (fn [v] (remove #(= % i) v))
(vals m))))
Here's a one-liner which does this in an elegant way. The perfect function for me to use in this scenario is clojure.walk/prewalk. What this fn does is it traverse all of the sub-forms of the form that you pass to it and it transforms them with the provided fn:
(defn remove-item-from-map-value [data item]
(clojure.walk/prewalk #(if (map-entry? %) [(first %) (remove #{item} (second %))] %) data))
What the remove-item-from-map-value fn will do is it will check if current form is a map entry and if so, it will remove specified key from its value (second element of the map entry, which is a vector containing a key and a value, respectively).
The best this about this approach is that is is completely extendable: you could decide to do different things for different types of forms, you can also handle nested forms, etc.
It took me some time to master this fn but once I got it I found it extremely useful!
This is a scenario I encountered many times, yet didn't find an idiomatic approach for it...
Suppose one would like to use a self-defined self-pred function to filter a seq. This self-pred function returns nil for unwanted elements, and useful information for wanted elements. It is desirable to keep the evaluated self-pred values for these wanted elements.
My general solution is:
;; self-pred is a pred function which returns valuable info
;; in general, they are unique and can be used as key
(let [new-seq (filter self-pred aseq)]
(zipmap (map self-pred new-seq) new-seq))
Basically, it is to call self-pred twice on all wanted elements. I feel it is so ugly...
Wonder if there is any better ways. Much appreciated for any input!
In these scenarios you can use keep, but you have to change your "predicate" function to return the full information you need, or nil, for each item.
For example:
(keep (fn [item]
(when-let [tested (some-test item)]
(assoc item :test-output tested))) aseq)
i use this kind of snippet:
(keep #(some->> % self-pred (vector %)) data)
like this:
user> (keep #(some->> % rseq (vector %)) [[1 2] [] [3 4]])
;;=> ([[1 2] (2 1)] [[3 4] (4 3)])
or if you like more verbose result:
user> (keep #(some->> % rseq (hash-map :data % :result)) [[1 2] [] [3 4]])
;;=> ({:result (2 1), :data [1 2]} {:result (4 3), :data [3 4]})
I wouldn't bother with keep, but would just use plain map & filter like so:
(def data (range 6))
(def my-pred odd?)
(defn zip [& colls] (apply map vector colls)) ; like Python zip
(defn filter-with-pred
[vals pred]
(filter #(first %)
(zip (map pred vals) vals)))
(println (filter-with-pred data my-pred))
with result:
([true 1] [true 3] [true 5])
If self-pred guarantees no duplicate key creation for differing values then I'd reach for reduce (since assoc the same key twice will override the original key value pair):
(reduce #(if-let [k (self-pred %2)]
(assoc %1 k %2)
%1)
{}
aseq)
Else we can use group-by to drive a similar result:
(dissoc (group-by self-pred aseq) nil)
Although not the same since the values will be in vectors: {k1 [v1 ..], k2 [..], ..}. but this guarantees all values are kept.
Is there a convenient way in ClojureScript to pretty print a nested hash-map in the way that the whole tree-structure becomes immediately visible.
For instance a map like this
(def my-map {:a {:b 1 :c 9} :b {:d 8 :e {:f 2 :g 3 :h 4}} :c 10})
should be printed like this:
{:a {:b 1
:c 9}
:b {:d 8
:e {:f 2
:g 3
:h 4}}
:c 10}
EDIT: There might also be vectors in the map. The usecase is just to inspect larger data structures during development.
There is no built-in way to do it. You might come close to what you want by using cljs.pprint and setting cljs.pprint/*print-right-margin* to a low value.
I would recommend to take a look at a small library shodan which provides a very useful inspect function:
(require '[shodan.inspection :refer [inspect]])
(inspect {:aaaaaa 1
:bbbbbb {:ccc 2
:dddddd [1 2 3 4 5]}})
It won't print anything in your CLJS REPL but will provide a handy view in your browser's console:
You can collapse and expand nested datastructures - it basically does what you asked for.
As a personal challenge I wrote the following code:
(enable-console-print!)
(def atomic? (complement coll?))
(def padding #(apply str (repeat % " ")))
(def tabulate #(apply str (repeat % "\t")))
(def strcat #(->> (apply concat %&) (apply str)))
(defn my-max-key [x] (if (empty? x) [""] (apply (partial max-key count) x)))
(defn longest-key [m] (->> m keys (filter atomic?) (map str) my-max-key))
(def length (comp count str))
(def not-map? (complement map?))
(def nested? #(some coll? %))
(def join #(apply str (interpose % %2)))
(def join-lines (partial join "\n"))
(defn has-atomic? [coll] (some atomic? coll))
(defn diff-key-lengths [key1 key2] (- (length key1) (length key2)))
(defn convert
([thing] (convert -1 thing))
([depth thing]
(defn convert-items []
(defn convert-seq []
(conj []
(map (partial convert (inc depth)) thing)
""))
(defn string-horizontally [[key value]]
(str (tabulate (inc depth))
key
(padding (diff-key-lengths (longest-key thing) key))
" → "
value))
(defn string-vertically [[key value]]
(str (convert (inc depth) key) "\n"
(convert (+ 2 depth) "↓") "\n"
(convert (inc depth) value) "\n"))
(defn convert-kv [[key value]]
(if (nested? [key value])
(string-vertically [key value])
(string-horizontally [key value])))
(cond (atomic? thing)
[(str (tabulate depth) thing)]
(not-map? thing)
(convert-seq)
(map? thing)
(map convert-kv thing)))
(->> (convert-items) flatten join-lines)))
(def sample-input [["the first thing in this nested vector"]
{{"this is a key in a nested map"
"that points to me!!!"}
{"and that entire map points to this map!!!"
"cool!!!"
"but it gets cooler cause..."
"the value's line up!!!"}}])
(->> sample-input convert println)
The terminal output is (psst... the values in a map do line up but I don't think that chrome uses a monospaced font!):
I'm looking for a way to apply some defaults to map. I know the following works:
(defn apply-defaults
[needing-defaults]
(merge {:key1 (fn1 10)
:key2 (fn2 76)}
needing-defaults))
The issue with the above is that the value of fn1 and fn2 are evaluated even though needing-defaults might already have these keys - thus never needing them.
I've tried with merge-with but that doesn't seem to work. I'm quite new at this - any suggestions?
I'm ussually applying defaults with merge-with function:
(merge-with #(or %1 %2) my-map default-map)
But in your case it should be something like:
(reduce (fn [m [k v]]
(if (contains? m k) m (assoc m k (v))))
needing-defaults
defaults)
where defaults is a map of functions:
{ :key1 #(fn1 10)
:key2 #(fn2 76)}
if is a special form, so it newer evaluates its false branch.
See my example for more info.
If I understand your question correctly, how about this?
(defn apply-defaults [nd]
(into {:key1 (sf1 10) :key2 (sf2 76)} nd))
You could use a macro to generate the contains? checks and short circuit the function calls.
(defmacro merge-with-defaults [default-coll coll]
(let [ks (reduce (fn [a k] (conj a
`(not (contains? ~coll ~k))
`(assoc ~k ~(k default-coll))))
[] (keys default-coll))]
`(cond-> ~coll ~#ks)))
(defn apply-defaults [needing-defaults]
(merge-with-defaults {:key1 (fn1 10)
:key2 (fn2 76)}
needing-defaults))
Just remember to keep the function calls inside the call to merge-with-defaults to prevent evaluation.
Since you can merge nil into a map, you can use the if-not macro:
(merge {} nil {:a 1} nil) ;; {:a 1}
Try this:
(defn apply-defaults [col]
(merge col
(if-not (contains? col :key1) {:key1 (some-function1 10)})
(if-not (contains? col :key2) {:key2 (some-function2 76)})))
some-function1 and some-function2 will only be executed when col does not already have the key.
Is there a way to mimic a this variable in something like (def foo {:two 2 :three (inc (:two this))})? Even better would be something like (def foo {:two 2 :three (inc ::two)}). I was told that there is a library that does exactly this, but I can't really find anything similar.
Thanks!
If you want a temporary name for something, that's what let is for.
(def foo (let [x {:two 2}]
(assoc x :three (inc (:two x)))))
I don't know of any library that does what you want. Every once in a while, someone suggests a "generalized arrow", like -> but with a magic symbol you can stick in the intermediary expressions which will be replaced by something else. See for example here and here. But this idea tends to be shot down because it's more complex and confusing for little benefit. let is your friend. See Rich's example:
(let [x []
x (conj x 1)
x (into x [2 3])
x (map inc x)]
...)
(Update: Rearranged & reworked. build-map and (a sketch of) -m> macros added.)
You could write this particular example as
(def foo (zipmap [:two :three] (iterate inc 2)))
The easiest general solution which occurs to me at this moment is
user> (-> {} (assoc :two 2) (#(assoc % :three (inc (:two %)))))
{:three 3, :two 2}
It's actually very flexible, although it does require you to write out assoc repeatedly.
To enable syntax similar to that from the question text, you could use something like this:
(defn build-map* [& kvs]
(reduce (fn [m [k v]]
(assoc m k (v m)))
{}
kvs))
(defmacro build-map [& raw-kvs]
(assert (even? (count raw-kvs)))
(let [kvs (map (fn [[k v]] [k `(fn [m#] (let [~'this m#] ~v))])
(partition 2 raw-kvs))]
`(build-map* ~#kvs)))
user> (build-map :two 2 :three (inc (:two this)))
{:three 3, :two 2}
You could easily change this to use a user-supplied symbol rather than the hardcoded this. Or you could switch to %, which is just a regular symbol outside anonymous function literals. Maybe add an explicit initial map argument, call it -m> (for map threading) and you can do
(-m> {} :two 2 :three (inc (:two %)))
for the same result.
Another funky way (mostly for the fun):
;;; from Alex Osborne's debug-repl,
;;; see http://gist.github.com/252421
;;; now changed to use &env
(defmacro local-bindings
"Produces a map of the names of local bindings to their values."
[]
(let [symbols (map key &env)]
(zipmap (map (fn [sym] `(quote ~sym)) symbols) symbols)))
(let [two 2
three (inc two)]
(into {} (map (fn [[k v]] [(keyword k) v]) (local-bindings))))
{:two 2, :three 3}
Note that this will also capture the bindings introduced by any outer let forms...