I have a set of functions that all have the same first parameter.
(defn get-file [dir filename] ...)
(defn write-file [dir filename] ...)
I'd like to partially apply all of them at once, basically. Seems like I could wrap them all in a function like this:
(defn get-fns [dir]
{:get-file (fn [filename] ...)
:write-file (fn [filename] ...)})
But that seems like accessing the functions would be kind of annoying.
(let [fns (get-fns dir-name)]
((fns :get-file) filename)))
I suppose I could use a mutable var as well, but that doesn't seem very, well, functional. Is there a canonical/idiomatic way to do this?
Let's think it through: you've got a list of things, and you want to apply something to each of them, so map. What do you want to apply to them? You want to partially apply the first argument, so partial. Then you want to have a unique reference to each of those values, so use deconstruction on the list.
Adding all that up, assuming dir, get-file, and write-file are all defined, you'd do
(let [[get-file-here write-file-here] (map #(partial % dir) [get-file write-file])]
...)
Here's a full example
(let [[add-to-3 sub-from-3] (map #(partial % 3) [+ -])]
(prn (add-to-3 2)) ; 5
(prn (sub-from-3 5))) ; -2
So we want a series of partial applications that we can use in a local binding context.
(defn get-fns
[dir]
{:get-f (partial get-file dir)
:write-f (partial write-file dir)})
Then, in a local binding, we can use them
(let [{:keys [get-f write-f]} (get-fns dir)]
(get-f file-name))
(you are of course free to use your original keywords, by changing the keywords I make it unambiguous that get-f is coming from get-fns and is not the globally bound var).
Related
In clojure, can one idiomatically obtain a function's name inside of its body, hopefully accomplishing so without introducing a new wrapper for the function's definition? can one also access the function's name inside of the body of the function's :test attribute as well?
For motivation, this can be helpful for certain logging situations, as well as for keeping the body of :test oblivious to changes to the name of the function which it is supplied for.
A short elucidation of the closest that meta gets follows; there's no this notion to supply to meta, as far as I know, in clojure.
(defn a [] (:name (meta (var a))))
Obviously it is easy to accomplish with a wrapper macro.
Edit: luckily no one so far mentioned lambda combinators.
There are 2 ways to approach your question. However, I suspect that to fully automate what you want to do, you would need to define your own custom defn replacement/wrapper.
The first thing to realize is that all functions are anonymous. When we type:
(defn hello [] (println "hi"))
we are really typing:
(def hello (fn [] (println "hi"))
we are creating a symbol hello that points to an anonymous var which in turn points to an anonymous function. However, we can give the function an "internal name" like so:
(def hello (fn fn-hello [] (println "hi")))
So now we can access the function from the outside via hello or from the inside using either hello of fn-hello symbols (please don't ever use hello in both locations or you create a lot of confusion...even though it is legal).
I frequently use the fn-hello method in (otherwise) anonymous functions since any exceptions thrown will include the fn-hello symbol which makes tracking down the source of the problem much easier (the line number of the error is often missing from the stack trace). For example when using Instaparse we need a map of anonymous transform functions like:
{
:identifier fn-identifier
:string fn-string
:integer (fn fn-integer [arg] [:integer (java.lang.Integer. arg)])
:boolean (fn fn-boolean [arg] [:boolean (java.lang.Boolean. arg)])
:namespace (fn fn-namespace [arg] [:namespace arg])
:prefix (fn fn-prefix [arg] [:prefix arg])
:organization (fn fn-organization [arg] [:organization arg])
:contact (fn fn-contact [arg] [:contact arg])
:description (fn fn-description [arg] [:description arg])
:presence (fn fn-presence [arg] [:presence arg])
:revision (fn fn-revision [& args] (prepend :revision args))
:iso-date (fn fn-iso-date [& args] [:iso-date (str/join args)])
:reference (fn fn-reference [arg] [:reference arg])
:identity (fn fn-identity [& args] (prepend :identity args))
:typedef (fn fn-typedef [& args] (prepend :typedef args))
:container (fn fn-container [& args] (prepend :container args))
:rpc (fn fn-rpc [& args] (prepend :rpc args))
:input (fn fn-input [& args] (prepend :input args))
...<snip>...
}
and giving each function the "internal name" makes debugging much, much easier. Perhaps this would be unnecessary if Clojure had better error messages, but that is a longstanding (& so far unfullfilled) wish.
You can find more details here: https://clojure.org/reference/special_forms#fn
If you read closely, it claims that (defn foo [x] ...) expands into
(def foo (fn foo [x] ...))
although you may need to experiment to see if this has already solved the use-case you are seeking. It works either way as seen in this example where we explicitly avoid the inner fn-fact name:
(def fact (fn [x] ; fn-fact omitted here
(if (zero? x)
1
(* x (fact (dec x))))))
(fact 4) => 24
This version also works:
(def fact (fn fn-fact [x]
(if (zero? x)
1
(* x (fn-fact (dec x))))))
(fact 4) => 24
(fn-fact 4) => Unable to resolve symbol: fn-fact
So we see that the "internal name" fn-fact is hidden inside the function and is invisible from the outside.
A 2nd approach, if using a macro, is to use the &form global data to access the line number from the source code. In the Tupelo library this technique is used to improve error messages for the
(defmacro dotest [& body] ; #todo README & tests
(let [test-name-sym (symbol (str "test-line-" (:line (meta &form))))]
`(clojure.test/deftest ~test-name-sym ~#body)))
This convenience macro allows the use of unit tests like:
(dotest
(is (= 3 (inc 2))))
which evalutes to
(deftest test-line-123 ; assuming this is on line 123 in source file
(is (= 3 (inc 2))))
instead of manually typing
(deftest t-addition
(is (= 3 (inc 2))))
You can access (:line (meta &form)) and other information in any macro which can make your error messages and/or Exceptions much more informative to the poor reader trying to debug a problem.
Besides the above macro wrapper example, another (more involved) example of the same technique can be seen in the Plumatic Schema library, where they wrap clojure.core/defn with an extended version.
You may also wish to view this question for clarification on how Clojure uses the "anonymous" var as an intermediary between a symbol and a function: When to use a Var instead of a function?
I am working through Clojure for the Brave and True. In the chapter on macros there is this exercise:
Write a macro that defines an arbitrary number of attribute-retrieving functions using one macro call. Here’s how you would call it:
(defattrs c-int :intelligence
c-str :strength
c-dex :dexterity)
What these functions do is retrieve a value from a map. For example given: (def character {:name "Travis", :intelligence 20, :strength 23, :dexterity 13})
The result of (c-int character) would be 20 of course such a function could easily be defined as (def c-int #(:intelligence %))
This is the solution I came up with to the problem:
(defmacro defattrs
[& attributes]
`(let [attribute-pairs# (partition 2 (quote ~attributes))]
(map (fn [[function-name# attribute-key#]]
(def function-name# #(attribute-key# %)))
attribute-pairs#)))
The problem I am having is that def uses the generated symbol name instead of what it resolves to to define the function (which in hindsight makes sense given the usage of def). My attempts to use expressions with defining functions such as:
(let [x ['c-int :intelligence]]
(def (first x) #((second x) %)))
Have resulted in this error: CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: First argument to def must be a Symbol, compiling:(/tmp/form-init5664727540242288850.clj:2:1)
Any ideas on how I can achieve this?
There are ordinary manipulations that you do with the attributes parameter that don't need to be generated as forms:
splitting the attributes into attribute-pairs; and
defining the function to generate a def form for each pair.
Applying the above to your code, we get ...
(defmacro defattrs [& attributes]
(let [attribute-pairs (partition 2 attributes)]
(map (fn [[function-name attribute-key]]
`(def ~function-name #(~attribute-key %)))
attribute-pairs)))
The scope of the back-quote is restricted to the def we wish to generate.
The values of the function-name and attribute-key parameters of the function are inserted into the def form.
There is one problem remaining.
The result of the map is a sequence of def forms.
The first one will be interpreted as a function to
apply to the rest.
The solution is to cons a do onto the front of the sequence:
(defmacro defattrs [& attributes]
(let [attribute-pairs (partition 2 attributes)]
(cons 'do
(map (fn [[function-name attribute-key]]
`(def ~function-name ~attribute-key))
attribute-pairs))))
I've also abbreviated #(~attribute-key %) to the equivalent ~attribute-key within the back-quoted form.
Let's see what the expansion looks like:
(macroexpand-1 '(defattrs dooby :brrr))
;(do (def dooby :brrr))
Looks good. Let's try it!
(defattrs gosh :brrr)
(gosh {:brrr 777})
;777
It works.
You have found the use-case for the back-quote and tilde. Just try this:
(let [x ['c-int :intelligence]]
(eval `(def ~(first x) #(~(second x) %))))
(def character {:name "Travis", :intelligence 20, :strength 23, :dexterity 13})
(c-int character) => 20
The back-quote is similar to the single-quote in that it makes the next form into a data structure of lists, symbols, etc. The difference is that the data structure is intended to be used as a template, where internal bits can be substituted using the tilde. The cool part is that the tilde doesn't just substitute items, but works for live code that can be any arbitrary Clojure expression.
I am programming something that doesn't have side-effects, but my code is not very readable.
Consider the following piece of code:
(let [csv_data (if header_row (cons header_row data_rows) data_rows)]
)
I'm trying to use csv_data in a block of code. What is a clean way of conditioning on the presence of a header_row? I've looked at if-let, but couldn't see how that could help here.
I have run into similar situations with functional for-loops as well where I'm binding the result to a local variable, and the code looks like a pile of expressions.
Do I really have to create a separate helper function in so many cases?
What am I missing here?
Use the cond->> macro
(let [csv_data (cond->> data_rows
header_row (cons header-row)]
)
It works like the regular ->> macro, but before each threading form a test expression has to be placed that determines whether the threading form will be used.
There is also cond->. Read more about threading macros here: Official threading macros guide
First, don't use underscore, prefer dashes.
Second, there is nothing wrong with a little helper function; after all, this seems to be a requirement for handling your particular data format.
Third, if you can change your data so that you can skip those decisions and have a uniform representation for all corner cases, this is even better. A header row contains a different kind of data (column names?), so you might prefer to keep them separate:
(let [csv {:header header :rows rows}]
...)
Or maybe at some point you could have "headers" and "rows" be of the same type: sequences of rows. Then you can concat them directly.
The ensure-x idiom is a very common way to normalize your data:
(defn ensure-list [data]
(and data (list data)))
For example:
user=> (ensure-list "something")
("something")
user=> (ensure-list ())
(())
user=> (ensure-list nil)
nil
And thus:
(let [csv (concat (ensure-list header) rows)]
...)
i would propose an utility macro. Something like this:
(defmacro update-when [check val-to-update f & params]
`(if-let [x# ~check]
(~f x# ~val-to-update ~#params)
~val-to-update))
user> (let [header-row :header
data-rows [:data1 :data2]]
(let [csv-data (update-when header-row data-rows cons)]
csv-data))
;;=> (:header :data1 :data2)
user> (let [header-row nil
data-rows [:data1 :data2]]
(let [csv-data (update-when header-row data-rows cons)]
csv-data))
;;=> [:data1 :data2]
it is quite universal, and lets you fulfill more complex tasks then just simple consing. Like for example you want to reverse some coll if check is trueish, and concat another list...
user> (let [header-row :header
data-rows [:data1 :data2]]
(let [csv-data (update-when header-row data-rows
(fn [h d & params] (apply concat (reverse d) params))
[1 2 3] ['a 'b 'c])]
csv-data))
;;=> (:data2 :data1 1 2 3 a b c)
update
as noticed by #amalloy , this macro should be a function:
(defn update-when [check val-to-update f & params]
(if check
(apply f check val-to-update params)
val-to-update))
After thinking about the "cost" of a one-line helper function in the namespace I've came up with a local function instead:
(let [merge_header_fn (fn [header_row data_rows]
(if header_row
(cons header_row data_rows)
data_rows))
csv_data (merge_header_fn header_row data_rows) ]
...
<use csv_data>
...
)
Unless someone can suggest a more elegant way of handling this, I will keep this as an answer.
Goal: Construct a ClojureScript function that takes a string s and returns the unique channel with the name (str s "-chan") (if the channel doesn't exist, then create it). Here is my attempt:
(defn string-channel
[s]
(let [chan-name (symbol (str s "-chan"))]
(defonce chan-name (chan))
chan-name))
This yields an error. How do I accomplish this goal? Note that since I'm in ClojureScript, I am unable to use the eval construct if the solution involves a macro.
I would rather propose to keep these channels in an atom (since defining vars dynamically seems really needless here). In addition, keeping channels in one place seems to me more manageable.
(def channels (atom {}))
(defn string-channel [s]
(when-not (#channels s)
(swap! channels assoc s (chan)))
(#channels s))
It turns out the right approach was to use a defmacro:
(defmacro string-channel
[s]
`(do
(defonce ~(symbol (str s "-chan")) (chan))
~(symbol (str s "-chan"))))
Consider using memoize if the intent is to ensure a unique channel for each label s:
(def unique-channel (memoize (fn [s] (chan))))
First, I have no experience with CS and Clojure is my first language, so pardon if the following problem has a solution, that is immediately apparent for a programmer.
The summary of the question is as follows: one needs to create atoms at will with unknown yet symbols at unknown times. My approach revolves around a) storing temporarily the names of the atoms as strings in an atom itself; b) changing those strings to symbols with a function; c) using a function to add and create new atoms. The problem pertains to step "c": calling the function does not create new atoms, but using its body does create them.
All steps taken in the REPL are below (comments follow code blocks):
user=> (def atom-pool
#_=> (atom ["a1" "a2"]))
#'user/atom-pool
'atom-pool is the atom that stores intermediate to-be atoms as strings.
user=> (defn atom-symbols []
#_=> (mapv symbol (deref atom-pool)))
#'user/atom-symbols
user=> (defmacro populate-atoms []
#_=> (let [qs (vec (remove #(resolve %) (atom-symbols)))]
#_=> `(do ~#(for [s qs]
#_=> `(def ~s (atom #{}))))))
#'user/populate-atoms
'populate-atoms is the macro, that defines those atoms. Note, the purpose of (remove #(resolve %) (atom-symbols)) is to create only yet non-existing atoms. 'atom-symbols reads 'atom-pool and turns its content to symbols.
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(nil nil nil)
Here it is confirmed that there are no 'a1', 'a2', 'a-new' atoms as of yet.
user=> (defn new-atom [a]
#_=> (do
#_=> (swap! atom-pool conj a)
#_=> (populate-atoms)))
#'user/new-atom
'new-atom is the function, that first adds new to-be atom as string to `atom-pool. Then 'populate-atoms creates all the atoms from 'atom-symbols function.
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 nil)
Here we see that 'a1 'a2 were created as clojure.lang.Var$Unbound just by defining a function, why?
user=> (new-atom "a-new")
#'user/a2
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 nil)
Calling (new-atom "a-new") did not create the 'a-new atom!
user=> (do
#_=> (swap! atom-pool conj "a-new")
#_=> (populate-atoms))
#'user/a-new
user=> (for [s ['a1 'a2 'a-new]]
#_=> (resolve s))
(#'user/a1 #'user/a2 #'user/a-new)
user=>
Here we see that resorting explicitly to 'new-atom's body did create the 'a-new atom. 'a-new is a type of clojure.lang.Atom, but 'a1 and 'a2 were skipped due to already being present in the namespace as clojure.lang.Var$Unbound.
Appreciate any help how to make it work!
EDIT: Note, this is an example. In my project the 'atom-pool is actually a collection of maps (atom with maps). Those maps have keys {:name val}. If a new map is added, then I create a corresponding atom for this map by parsing its :name key.
"The summary of the question is as follows: one needs to create atoms at will with unknown yet symbols at unknown times. "
This sounds like a solution looking for a problem. I would generally suggest you try another way of achieving whatever the actual functionality is without generating vars at runtime, but if you must, you should use intern and leave out the macro stuff.
You cannot solve this with macros since macros are expanded at compile time, meaning that in
(defn new-atom [a]
(do
(swap! atom-pool conj a)
(populate-atoms)))
populate-atoms is expanded only once; when the (defn new-atom ...) form is compiled, but you're attempting to change its expansion when new-atom is called (which necessarily happens later).
#JoostDiepenmaat is right about why populate-atoms is not behaving as expected. You simply cannot do this using macros, and it is generally best to avoid generating vars at runtime. A better solution would be to define your atom-pool as a map of keywords to atoms:
(def atom-pool
(atom {:a1 (atom #{}) :a2 (atom #{})}))
Then you don't need atom-symbols or populate-atoms because you're not dealing with vars at compile-time, but typical data structures at run-time. Your new-atom function could look like this:
(defn new-atom [kw]
(swap! atom-pool assoc kw (atom #{})))
EDIT: If you don't want your new-atom function to override existing atoms which might contain actual data instead of just #{}, you can check first to see if the atom exists in the atom-pool:
(defn new-atom [kw]
(when-not (kw #atom-pool)
(swap! atom-pool assoc kw (atom #{}))))
I've already submitted one answer to this question, and I think that that answer is better, but here is a radically different approach based on eval:
(def atom-pool (atom ["a1" "a2"]))
(defn new-atom! [name]
(load-string (format "(def %s (atom #{}))" name)))
(defn populate-atoms! []
(doseq [x atom-pool]
(new-atom x)))
format builds up a string where %s is substituted with the name you're passing in. load-string reads the resulting string (def "name" (atom #{})) in as a data structure and evals it (this is equivalent to (eval (read-string "(def ...)
Of course, then we're stuck with the problem of only defining atoms that don't already exist. We could change the our new-atom! function to make it so that we only create an atom if it doesn't already exist:
(defn new-atom! [name]
(when-not (resolve (symbol name))
(load-string (format "(def %s (atom #{}))" name name))))
The Clojure community seems to be against using eval in most cases, as it is usually not needed (macros or functions will do what you want in 99% of cases*), and eval can be potentially unsafe, especially if user input is involved -- see Brian Carper's answer to this question.
*After attempting to solve this particular problem using macros, I came to the conclusion that it either cannot be done without relying on eval, or my macro-writing skills just aren't good enough to get the job done with a macro!
At any rate, I still think my other answer is a better solution here -- generally when you're getting way down into the nuts & bolts of writing macros or using eval, there is probably a simpler approach that doesn't involve metaprogramming.