Clojure's map is what other lisps might call mapcar with car being roughly equivalent to clojure's first. This makes me wonder if there is a mapcdr and whether clojure has a such a function where cdr is roughly equivalent to clojure's rest.
I imagine the behavior to be like such:
(mapcdr #(apply + %) [1 2 3 4 5])
=> (15 14 12 9 5)
The expansion looking like:
(list (apply + [1 2 3 4 5])
(apply + [2 3 4 5])
(apply + [3 4 5])
(apply + [4 5])
(apply + [5])
You can use the fn reductions, which does almost what you want:
(->> [1 2 3 4 5]
reverse
(reductions +)
reverse)
Wrote something quick, though it'd still be nice to have something more native.
(defn maplist
"Based on Common Lisp's maplist."
[fn coll]
(if (empty? coll) nil
(cons (fn coll)
(maplist fn (rest coll)))))
(maplist #(apply + %) [1 2 3 4 5])
=> (15 14 12 9 5)
I'd be surprised if there isn't because it seems like standard map is just maplist with first wrapped around coll.
Related
Is there a more elegant way to have into work with single items and lists than the following (admittedly atrocious) function?
(defn into-1-or-more
[this-list list-or-single]
(into this-list (flatten (conj [] list-or-single))))
Which can handle either:
(into-1-or-more [1 2 3 4] 5)
;[1 2 3 4 5]
Or:
(into-1-or-more [1 2 3 4] [5 6 7 8])
;[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8]
I am building a collection with reduce using into [] with results from functions in a list. However some of the functions return single items, and others return lists of items. Like:
(reduce #(into [] (% data)) [func-return-item func-return-list func-return-either])
Would the best solution be to just do the following instead?
(into [] (flatten (map #(% data) [func-return-item ...])
Although it would be more ideal to know for sure what return type you are getting, here is a simple answer:
(flatten [ curr-list (mystery-fn) ] )
Examples:
(flatten [[1 2 3] 9 ] )
;=> (1 2 3 9)
(flatten [[[1] 2 3] [4 5] 6 ] )
;=> (1 2 3 4 5 6)
You could wrap it into a function if you want, but it hardly seems necessary.
This transducer flattens sequential inputs, but only by one "level":
(defn maybe-cat [rf]
(let [catrf (cat rf)]
(fn
([] (rf))
([result] (rf result))
([result input]
(if (sequential? input)
(catrf result input)
(rf result input))))))
Example:
(into [] maybe-cat [[:foo] :bar [[:quux]]])
;= [:foo :bar [:quux]]
As this example demonstrates, this approach makes it possible to include sequential collections in the output (by wrapping them in an additional sequential layer – [[:quux]] produces [:quux] in the output).
I'm looking for a sequential data structure which is perfect for the following operation. The lenght of the list remains constant, it will never be longer or shorter than a fixed length.
Omit the first item and add x to the end.
(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
(pop-and-push "10")
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
There is only one other reading-operation that has to be done equally often:
(last coll)
pop-and-push could be implemented like this:
(defn pop-and-push [coll x]
(concat (pop coll) ["x"]))
(unfortunately this does not work with sequences produced by e.g. range, it just pops when the sequence declared by the literals '(..) is passed.)
but is this optimal?
The main issue here (once we change "x" to x) is that concat returns a lazy-seq, and lazy-seqs are invalid args to pop.
user=> (defn pop-and-push [coll x] (concat (pop coll) [x]))
#'user/pop-and-push
user=> (pop-and-push [1 2 3] 4)
(1 2 4)
user=> (pop-and-push *1 5)
ClassCastException clojure.lang.LazySeq cannot be cast to clojure.lang.IPersistentStack clojure.lang.RT.pop (RT.java:730)
My naive preference would be to use a vector. This function is easy to implement with subvec.
user=> (defn pop-and-push [v x] (conj (subvec (vec v) 1) x))
#'user/pop-and-push
user=> (pop-and-push [1 2 3] 4)
[2 3 4]
user=> (pop-and-push *1 5)
[3 4 5]
as you can see, this version can actually operate on its own return value
As suggested in the comments, PersistentQueue is made for this situation:
user=> (defn pop-and-push [v x] (conj (pop v) x))
#'user/pop-and-push
user=> (pop-and-push (into clojure.lang.PersistentQueue/EMPTY [1 2 3]) 4)
#object[clojure.lang.PersistentQueue 0x50313382 "clojure.lang.PersistentQueue#7c42"]
user=> (into [] *1)
[2 3 4]
user=> (pop-and-push *2 5)
#object[clojure.lang.PersistentQueue 0x4bd31064 "clojure.lang.PersistentQueue#8023"]
user=> (into [] *1)
[3 4 5]
The PersistentQueue data structure, though less convenient to use in some ways, is actually optimized for this usage.
I want to map over a sequence in order but want to carry an accumulator value forward, like in a reduce.
Example use case: Take a vector and return a running total, each value multiplied by two.
(defn map-with-accumulator
"Map over input but with an accumulator. func accepts [value accumulator] and returns [new-value new-accumulator]."
[func accumulator collection]
(if (empty? collection)
nil
(let [[this-value new-accumulator] (func (first collection) accumulator)]
(cons this-value (map-with-accumulator func new-accumulator (rest collection))))))
(defn double-running-sum
[value accumulator]
[(* 2 (+ value accumulator)) (+ value accumulator)])
Which gives
(prn (pr-str (map-with-accumulator double-running-sum 0 [1 2 3 4 5])))
>>> (2 6 12 20 30)
Another example to illustrate the generality, print running sum as stars and the original number. A slightly convoluted example, but demonstrates that I need to keep the running accumulator in the map function:
(defn stars [n] (apply str (take n (repeat \*))))
(defn stars-sum [value accumulator]
[[(stars (+ value accumulator)) value] (+ value accumulator)])
(prn (pr-str (map-with-accumulator stars-sum 0 [1 2 3 4 5])))
>>> (["*" 1] ["***" 2] ["******" 3] ["**********" 4] ["***************" 5])
This works fine, but I would expect this to be a common pattern, and for some kind of map-with-accumulator to exist in core. Does it?
You should look into reductions. For this specific case:
(reductions #(+ % (* 2 %2)) 2 (range 2 6))
produces
(2 6 12 20 30)
The general solution
The common pattern of a mapping that can depend on both an item and the accumulating sum of a sequence is captured by the function
(defn map-sigma [f s] (map f s (sigma s)))
where
(def sigma (partial reductions +))
... returns the sequence of accumulating sums of a sequence:
(sigma (repeat 12 1))
; (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12)
(sigma [1 2 3 4 5])
; (1 3 6 10 15)
In the definition of map-sigma, f is a function of two arguments, the item followed by the accumulator.
The examples
In these terms, the first example can be expressed
(map-sigma (fn [_ x] (* 2 x)) [1 2 3 4 5])
; (2 6 12 20 30)
In this case, the mapping function ignores the item and depends only on the accumulator.
The second can be expressed
(map-sigma #(vector (stars %2) %1) [1 2 3 4 5])
; (["*" 1] ["***" 2] ["******" 3] ["**********" 4] ["***************" 5])
... where the mapping function depends on both the item and the accumulator.
There is no standard function like map-sigma.
General conclusions
Just because a pattern of computation is common does not imply that
it merits or requires its own standard function.
Lazy sequences and the sequence library are powerful enough to tease
apart many problems into clear function compositions.
Rewritten to be specific to the question posed.
Edited to accommodate the changed second example.
Reductions is the way to go as Diego mentioned however to your specific problem the following works
(map #(* % (inc %)) [1 2 3 4 5])
As mentioned you could use reductions:
(defn map-with-accumulator [f init-value collection]
(map first (reductions (fn [[_ accumulator] next-elem]
(f next-elem accumulator))
(f (first collection) init-value)
(rest collection))))
=> (map-with-accumulator double-running-sum 0 [1 2 3 4 5])
(2 6 12 20 30)
=> (map-with-accumulator stars-sum 0 [1 2 3 4 5])
("*" "***" "******" "**********" "***************")
It's only in case you want to keep the original requirements. Otherwise I'd prefer to decompose f into two separate functions and use Thumbnail's approach.
If I use the reductions function like so:
(reductions + [1 2 3 4 5])
Then I get
(1 3 6 10 15)
Which is great - but I'd like to apply a binary function in the same way without the state being carried forward - something like
(magic-hof + [1 2 3 4 5])
leads to
(1 3 5 7 9)
ie it returns the operation applied to the first pair, then steps 1 to the next pair.
Can someone tell me the higher-order function I'm looking for? (Something like reductions)
This is my (non-working) go at it:
(defn thisfunc [a b] [(+ a b) b])
(reduce thisfunc [1 2 3 4 5])
You can do it with map:
(map f coll (rest coll))
And if you want a function:
(defn map-pairwise [f coll]
(map f coll (rest coll)))
And if you really need the first element to remain untouched (thanx to juan.facorro's comment):
(defn magic-hof [f [x & xs :as s]]
(cons x (map f s xs)))
partition will group your seq:
user> (->> [1 2 3 4 5] (partition 2 1) (map #(apply + %)) (cons 1))
(1 3 5 7 9)
So, you want to apply a function to subsequent pairs of elements?
(defn pairwise-apply
[f sq]
(when (seq sq)
(->> (map f sq (next sq))
(cons (first sq)))))
Let's try it:
(pairwise-apply + (range 1 6))
;; => (1 3 5 7 9)
This is sufficient:
(#(map + (cons 0 %) %) [1 2 3 4 5])
;; => (1 3 5 7 9)
I need to modify map function behavior to provide mapping not with minimum collection size but with maximum and use zero for missing elements.
Standard behavior:
(map + [1 2 3] [4 5 6 7 8]) => [5 7 9]
Needed behavior:
(map + [1 2 3] [4 5 6 7 8]) => [5 7 9 7 8]
I wrote function to do this, but it seems not very extensible with varargs.
(defn map-ext [f coll1 coll2]
(let [mx (max (count coll1) (count coll2))]
(map f
(concat coll1 (repeat (- mx (count coll1)) 0))
(concat coll2 (repeat (- mx (count coll2)) 0)))))
Is there a better way to do this?
Your method is concise, but inefficient (it calls count). A more efficient solution, which does not require the entirety of its input sequences to be stored in memory follows:
(defn map-pad [f pad & colls]
(lazy-seq
(let [seqs (map seq colls)]
(when (some identity seqs)
(cons (apply f (map #(or (first %) pad) seqs))
(apply map-pad f pad (map rest seqs)))))))
Used like this:
user=> (map-pad + 0 [] [1] [1 1] (range 1 10))
(3 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
Edit: Generalized map-pad to arbitrary arity.
Another lazy variant, usable with an arbitrary number of input sequences:
(defn map-ext [f ext & seqs]
(lazy-seq
(if (some seq seqs)
(cons (apply f (map #(if (seq %) (first %) ext) seqs))
(apply map-ext f ext (map rest seqs)))
())))
Usage:
user> (map-ext + 0 [1 2 3] [4 5 6 7 8])
(5 7 9 7 8)
user> (map-ext + 0 [1 2 3] [4 5 6 7 8] [3 4])
(8 11 9 7 8)
If you just want it to work for any number of collections, try:
(defn map-ext [f & colls]
(let [mx (apply max (map count colls))]
(apply map f (map #(concat % (repeat (- mx (count %)) 0)) colls))))
Clojure> (map-ext + [1 2] [1 2 3] [1 2 3 4])
(3 6 6 4)
I suspect there may be better solutions though (as Trevor Caira suggests, this solution isn't lazy due to the calls to count).
How about that:
(defn map-ext [f x & xs]
(let [colls (cons x xs)
res (apply map f colls)
next (filter not-empty (map #(drop (count res) %) colls))]
(if (empty? next) res
(lazy-seq (concat res (apply map-ext f next))))))
user> (map-ext + [1 2 3] [4] [5 6] [7 8 9 10])
(17 16 12 10)
Along the lines of #LeNsTR's solution, but simpler and faster:
(defn map-ext [f & colls]
(lazy-seq
(let [colls (filter seq colls)
firsts (map first colls)
rests (map rest colls)]
(when (seq colls)
(cons (apply f firsts) (apply map-ext f rests))))))
(map-ext + [1 2 3] [4] [5 6] [7 8 9 10])
;(17 16 12 10)
I've just noticed Michał Marczyk's accepted solution, which is superior: it deals properly with asymmetric mapping functions such as -.
We can make Michał Marczyk's answer neater by using the convention - which many core functions follow - that you get a default or identity value by calling the function with no arguments. For examples:
(+) ;=> 0
(concat) ;=> ()
The code becomes
(defn map-ext [f & seqs]
(lazy-seq
(when (some seq seqs)
(cons (apply f (map #(if (seq %) (first %) (f)) seqs))
(apply map-ext f (map rest seqs)))
)))
(map-ext + [1 2 3] [4 5 6 7 8] [3 4])
;(8 11 9 7 8)
I've made the minimum changes. It could be speeded up a bit.
We may need a function that will inject such a default value into a function that lacks it:
(defn with-default [f default]
(fn
([] default)
([& args] (apply f args))))
((with-default + 6)) ;=> 6
((with-default + 6) 7 8) ;=> 15
This could be speeded up or even turned into a macro.