I'm looking for something that is probably very well defined in Clojure (in the Lisp world at large in fact) but I don't have enough experience or culture to get on the right track and Google hasn't been very helpful so far.
Let's say I have three simple forms:
(defn add-one [v] (+ v 1))
(defn add-two [v] (+ v 2))
(defn add-three [v] (+ v 3))
Out of convenience, they are stored in a vector. In the real world, that vector would vary depending on the context:
(def operations
[add-one
add-two
add-three])
And I also have an initial value:
(def value 42)
Now, I would like to apply all the functions in that vector to that value and get the result of the combined operations:
(loop [ops operations
val value]
(if (empty? ops)
val
(recur (rest ops)
((first ops) val))))
While this does work, I'm surprised there isn't a higher level form just for that. I've looked all over the place but couldn't find anything.
The functional phrase you are searching for is (apply comp operations):
((apply comp operations) 42)
;48
Your loop does work if you feed it 42 for value:
(loop [ops operations
val 42]
(if (empty? ops)
val
(recur (rest ops)
((first ops) val))))
;48
This applies the operations in the opposite order from comp.
... As does using reduce:
(reduce (fn [v f] (f v)) 42 operations)
;48
If you look at the source code for comp, you'll find that the general case essentially executes a loop similar to yours upon a reversed list of the supplied functions.
'In Lisp world at large' you can use reduce:
user> (reduce (fn [x y] (y x)) 5 [inc inc inc inc])
;; => 9
This may look not so sexy, but it works everywhere with minor variations (this is Common Lisp, for example):
CL-USER> (reduce (lambda (x y) (funcall y x))
'(1+ 1+ 1+ 1+)
:initial-value 5)
9
Related
problem formulation
Informally speaking, I want to write a function which, taking as input a function that generates binary factorizations and an element (usually neutral), creates an arbitrary length factorization generator. To be more specific, let us first define the function nfoldr in Clojure.
(defn nfoldr [f e]
(fn rec [n]
(fn [s]
(if (zero? n)
(if (empty? s) e)
(if (seq s)
(if-some [x ((rec (dec n)) (rest s))]
(f (list (first s) x))))))))
Here nil is used with the meaning "undefined output, input not in function's domain". Additionally, let us view the inverse relation of a function f as a set-valued function defining inv(f)(y) = {x | f(x) = y}.
I want to define a function nunfoldr such that inv(nfoldr(f , e)(n)) = nunfoldr(inv(f) , e)(n) when for every element y inv(f)(y) is finite, for each binary function f, element e and natural number n.
Moreover, I want the factorizations to be generated as lazily as possible, in a 2-dimensional sense of laziness. My goal is that, when getting some part of a factorization for the first time, there does not happen (much) computation needed for next parts or next factorizations. Similarly, when getting one factorization for the first time, there does not happen computation needed for next ones, whereas all the previous ones get in effect fully realized.
In an alternative formulation we can use the following longer version of nfoldr, which is equivalent to the shorter one when e is a neutral element.
(defn nfoldr [f e]
(fn [n]
(fn [s]
(if (zero? n)
(if (empty? s) e)
((fn rec [n]
(fn [s]
(if (= 1 n)
(if (and (seq s) (empty? (rest s))) (first s))
(if (seq s)
(if-some [x ((rec (dec n)) (rest s))]
(f (list (first s) x)))))))
n)))))
a special case
This problem is a generalization of the problem of generating partitions described in that question. Let us see how the old problem can be reduced to the current one. We have for every natural number n:
npt(n) = inv(nconcat(n)) = inv(nfoldr(concat2 , ())(n)) = nunfoldr(inv(concat2) , ())(n) = nunfoldr(pt2 , ())(n)
where:
npt(n) generates n-ary partitions
nconcat(n) computes n-ary concatenation
concat2 computes binary concatenation
pt2 generates binary partitions
So the following definitions give a solution to that problem.
(defn generate [step start]
(fn [x] (take-while some? (iterate step (start x)))))
(defn pt2-step [[x y]]
(if (seq y) (list (concat x (list (first y))) (rest y))))
(def pt2-start (partial list ()))
(def pt2 (generate pt2-step pt2-start))
(def npt (nunfoldr pt2 ()))
I will summarize my story of solving this problem, using the old one to create example runs, and conclude with some observations and proposals for extension.
solution 0
At first, I refined/generalized the approach I took for solving the old problem. Here I write my own versions of concat and map mainly for a better presentation and, in the case of concat, for some added laziness. Of course we can use Clojure's versions or mapcat instead.
(defn fproduct [f]
(fn [s]
(lazy-seq
(if (and (seq f) (seq s))
(cons
((first f) (first s))
((fproduct (rest f)) (rest s)))))))
(defn concat' [s]
(lazy-seq
(if (seq s)
(if-let [x (seq (first s))]
(cons (first x) (concat' (cons (rest x) (rest s))))
(concat' (rest s))))))
(defn map' [f]
(fn rec [s]
(lazy-seq
(if (seq s)
(cons (f (first s)) (rec (rest s)))))))
(defn nunfoldr [f e]
(fn rec [n]
(fn [x]
(if (zero? n)
(if (= e x) (list ()) ())
((comp
concat'
(map' (comp
(partial apply map)
(fproduct (list
(partial partial cons)
(rec (dec n))))))
f)
x)))))
In an attempt to get inner laziness we could replace (partial partial cons) with something like (comp (partial partial concat) list). Although this way we get inner LazySeqs, we do not gain any effective laziness because, before consing, most of the computation required for fully realizing the rest part takes place, something that seems unavoidable within this general approach. Based on the longer version of nfoldr, we can also define the following faster version.
(defn nunfoldr [f e]
(fn [n]
(fn [x]
(if (zero? n)
(if (= e x) (list ()) ())
(((fn rec [n]
(fn [x] (println \< x \>)
(if (= 1 n)
(list (list x))
((comp
concat'
(map' (comp
(partial apply map)
(fproduct (list
(partial partial cons)
(rec (dec n))))))
f)
x))))
n)
x)))))
Here I added a println call inside the main recursive function to get some visualization of eagerness. So let us demonstrate the outer laziness and inner eagerness.
user=> (first ((npt 5) (range 3)))
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
(() () () () (0 1 2))
user=> (ffirst ((npt 5) (range 3)))
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
()
solution 1
Then I thought of a more promising approach, using the function:
(defn transpose [s]
(lazy-seq
(if (every? seq s)
(cons
(map first s)
(transpose (map rest s))))))
To get the new solution we replace the previous argument in the map' call with:
(comp
(partial map (partial apply cons))
transpose
(fproduct (list
repeat
(rec (dec n)))))
Trying to get inner laziness we could replace (partial apply cons) with #(cons (first %) (lazy-seq (second %))) but this is not enough. The problem lies in the (every? seq s) test inside transpose, where checking a lazy sequence of factorizations for emptiness (as a stopping condition) results in realizing it.
solution 2
A first way to tackle the previous problem that came to my mind was to use some additional knowledge about the number of n-ary factorizations of an element. This way we can repeat a certain number of times and use only this sequence for the stopping condition of transpose. So we will replace the test inside transpose with (seq (first s)), add an input count to nunfoldr and replace the argument in the map' call with:
(comp
(partial map #(cons (first %) (lazy-seq (second %))))
transpose
(fproduct (list
(partial apply repeat)
(rec (dec n))))
(fn [[x y]] (list (list ((count (dec n)) y) x) y)))
Let us turn to the problem of partitions and define:
(defn npt-count [n]
(comp
(partial apply *)
#(map % (range 1 n))
(partial comp inc)
(partial partial /)
count))
(def npt (nunfoldr pt2 () npt-count))
Now we can demonstrate outer and inner laziness.
user=> (first ((npt 5) (range 3)))
< (0 1 2) >
(< (0 1 2) >
() < (0 1 2) >
() < (0 1 2) >
() < (0 1 2) >
() (0 1 2))
user=> (ffirst ((npt 5) (range 3)))
< (0 1 2) >
()
However, the dependence on additional knowledge and the extra computational cost make this solution unacceptable.
solution 3
Finally, I thought that in some crucial places I should use a kind of lazy sequences "with a non-lazy end", in order to be able to check for emptiness without realizing. An empty such sequence is just a non-lazy empty list and overall they behave somewhat like the lazy-conss of the early days of Clojure. Using the definitions given below we can reach an acceptable solution, which works under the assumption that always at least one of the concat'ed sequences (when there is one) is non-empty, something that holds in particular when every element has at least one binary factorization and we are using the longer version of nunfoldr.
(def lazy? (partial instance? clojure.lang.IPending))
(defn empty-eager? [x] (and (not (lazy? x)) (empty? x)))
(defn transpose [s]
(lazy-seq
(if-not (some empty-eager? s)
(cons
(map first s)
(transpose (map rest s))))))
(defn concat' [s]
(if-not (empty-eager? s)
(lazy-seq
(if-let [x (seq (first s))]
(cons (first x) (concat' (cons (rest x) (rest s))))
(concat' (rest s))))
()))
(defn map' [f]
(fn rec [s]
(if-not (empty-eager? s)
(lazy-seq (cons (f (first s)) (rec (rest s))))
())))
Note that in this approach the input function f should produce lazy sequences of the new kind and the resulting n-ary factorizer will also produce such sequences. To take care of the new input requirement, for the problem of partitions we define:
(defn pt2 [s]
(lazy-seq
(let [start (list () s)]
(cons
start
((fn rec [[x y]]
(if (seq y)
(lazy-seq
(let [step (list (concat x (list (first y))) (rest y))]
(cons step (rec step))))
()))
start)))))
Once again, let us demonstrate outer and inner laziness.
user=> (first ((npt 5) (range 3)))
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
(< (0 1 2) >
() < (0 1 2) >
() < (0 1 2) >
() () (0 1 2))
user=> (ffirst ((npt 5) (range 3)))
< (0 1 2) >
< (0 1 2) >
()
To make the input and output use standard lazy sequences (sacrificing a bit of laziness), we can add:
(defn lazy-end->eager-end [s]
(if (seq s)
(lazy-seq (cons (first s) (lazy-end->eager-end (rest s))))
()))
(defn eager-end->lazy-end [s]
(lazy-seq
(if-not (empty-eager? s)
(cons (first s) (eager-end->lazy-end (rest s))))))
(def nunfoldr
(comp
(partial comp (partial comp eager-end->lazy-end))
(partial apply nunfoldr)
(fproduct (list
(partial comp lazy-end->eager-end)
identity))
list))
observations and extensions
While creating solution 3, I observed that the old mechanism for lazy sequences in Clojure might not be necessarily inferior to the current one. With the transition, we gained the ability to create lazy sequences without any substantial computation taking place but lost the ability to check for emptiness without doing the computation needed to get one more element. Because both of these abilities can be important in some cases, it would be nice if a new mechanism was introduced, which would combine the advantages of the previous ones. Such a mechanism could use again an outer LazySeq thunk, which when forced would return an empty list or a Cons or another LazySeq or a new LazyCons thunk. This new thunk when forced would return a Cons or perhaps another LazyCons. Now empty? would force only LazySeq thunks while first and rest would also force LazyCons. In this setting map could look like this:
(defn map [f s]
(lazy-seq
(if (empty? s) ()
(lazy-cons
(cons (f (first s)) (map f (rest s)))))))
I have also noticed that the approach taken from solution 1 onwards lends itself to further generalization. If inside the argument in the map' call in the longer nunfoldr we replace cons with concat, transpose with some implementation of Cartesian product and repeat with another recursive call, we can then create versions that "split at different places". For example, using the following as the argument we can define a nunfoldm function that "splits in the middle" and corresponds to an easy-to-imagine nfoldm. Note that all "splitting strategies" are equivalent when f is associative.
(comp
(partial map (partial apply concat))
cproduct
(fproduct (let [n-half (quot n 2)]
(list (rec n-half) (rec (- n n-half))))))
Another natural modification would allow for infinite factorizations. To achieve this, if f generated infinite factorizations, nunfoldr(f , e)(n) should generate the factorizations in an order of type ω, so that each one of them could be produced in finite time.
Other possible extensions include dropping the n parameter, creating relational folds (in correspondence with the relational unfolds we consider here) and generically handling algebraic data structures other than sequences as input/output. This book, which I have just discovered, seems to contain valuable relevant information, given in a categorical/relational language.
Finally, to be able to do this kind of programming more conveniently, we could transfer it into a point-free, algebraic setting. This would require constructing considerable "extra machinery", in fact almost making a new language. This paper demonstrates such a language.
A reduce call has its f argument first. Visually speaking, this is often the biggest part of the form.
e.g.
(reduce
(fn [[longest current] x]
(let [tail (last current)
next-seq (if (or (not tail) (> x tail))
(conj current x)
[x])
new-longest (if (> (count next-seq) (count longest))
next-seq
longest)]
[new-longest next-seq]))
[[][]]
col))
The problem is, the val argument (in this case [[][]]) and col argument come afterward, below, and it's a long way for your eyes to travel to match those with the parameters of f.
It would look more readable to me if it were in this order instead:
(reduceb val col
(fn [x y]
...))
Should I implement this macro, or am I approaching this entirely wrong in the first place?
You certainly shouldn't write that macro, since it is easily written as a function instead. I'm not super keen on writing it as a function, either, though; if you really want to pair the reduce with its last two args, you could write:
(-> (fn [x y]
...)
(reduce init coll))
Personally when I need a large function like this, I find that a comma actually serves as a good visual anchor, and makes it easier to tell that two forms are on that last line:
(reduce (fn [x y]
...)
init, coll)
Better still is usually to not write such a large reduce in the first place. Here you're combining at least two steps into one rather large and difficult step, by trying to find all at once the longest decreasing subsequence. Instead, try splitting the collection up into decreasing subsequences, and then take the largest one.
(defn decreasing-subsequences [xs]
(lazy-seq
(cond (empty? xs) []
(not (next xs)) (list xs)
:else (let [[x & [y :as more]] xs
remainder (decreasing-subsequences more)]
(if (> y x)
(cons [x] remainder)
(cons (cons x (first remainder)) (rest remainder)))))))
Then you can replace your reduce with:
(apply max-key count (decreasing-subsequences xs))
Now, the lazy function is not particularly shorter than your reduce, but it is doing one single thing, which means it can be understood more easily; also, it has a name (giving you a hint as to what it's supposed to do), and it can be reused in contexts where you're looking for some other property based on decreasing subsequences, not just the longest. You can even reuse it more often than that, if you replace the > in (> y x) with a function parameter, allowing you to split up into subsequences based on any predicate. Plus, as mentioned it is lazy, so you can use it in situations where a reduce of any sort would be impossible.
Speaking of ease of understanding, as you can see I misunderstood what your function is supposed to do when reading it. I'll leave as an exercise for you the task of converting this to strictly-increasing subsequences, where it looked to me like you were computing decreasing subsequences.
You don't have to use reduce or recursion to get the descending (or ascending) sequences. Here we are returning all the descending sequences in order from longest to shortest:
(def in [3 2 1 0 -1 2 7 6 7 6 5 4 3 2])
(defn descending-sequences [xs]
(->> xs
(partition 2 1)
(map (juxt (fn [[x y]] (> x y)) identity))
(partition-by first)
(filter ffirst)
(map #(let [xs' (mapcat second %)]
(take-nth 2 (cons (first xs') xs'))))
(sort-by (comp - count))))
(descending-sequences in)
;;=> ((7 6 5 4 3 2) (3 2 1 0 -1) (7 6))
(partition 2 1) gives every possible comparison and partition-by allows you to mark out the runs of continuous decreases. At this point you can already see the answer and the rest of the code is removing the baggage that is no longer needed.
If you want the ascending sequences instead then you only need to change the < to a >:
;;=> ((-1 2 7) (6 7))
If, as in the question, you only want the longest sequence then put a first as the last function call in the thread last macro. Alternatively replace the sort-by with:
(apply max-key count)
For maximum readability you can name the operations:
(defn greatest-continuous [op xs]
(let [op-pair? (fn [[x y]] (op x y))
take-every-second #(take-nth 2 (cons (first %) %))
make-canonical #(take-every-second (apply concat %))]
(->> xs
(partition 2 1)
(partition-by op-pair?)
(filter (comp op-pair? first))
(map make-canonical)
(apply max-key count))))
I feel your pain...they can be hard to read.
I see 2 possible improvements. The simplest is to write a wrapper similar to the Plumatic Plumbing defnk style:
(fnk-reduce { :fn (fn [state val] ... <new state value>)
:init []
:coll some-collection } )
so the function call has a single map arg, where each of the 3 pieces is labelled & can come in any order in the map literal.
Another possibility is to just extract the reducing fn and give it a name. This can be either internal or external to the code expression containing the reduce:
(let [glommer (fn [state value] (into state value)) ]
(reduce glommer #{} some-coll))
or possibly
(defn glommer [state value] (into state value))
(reduce glommer #{} some-coll))
As always, anything that increases clarity is preferred. If you haven't noticed already, I'm a big fan of Martin Fowler's idea of Introduce Explaining Variable refactoring. :)
I will apologize in advance for posting a longer solution to something where you wanted more brevity/clarity.
We are in the new age of clojure transducers and it appears a bit that your solution was passing the "longest" and "current" forward for record-keeping. Rather than passing that state forward, a stateful transducer would do the trick.
(def longest-decreasing
(fn [rf]
(let [longest (volatile! [])
current (volatile! [])
tail (volatile! nil)]
(fn
([] (rf))
([result] (transduce identity rf result))
([result x] (do (if (or (nil? #tail) (< x #tail))
(if (> (count (vswap! current conj (vreset! tail x)))
(count #longest))
(vreset! longest #current))
(vreset! current [(vreset! tail x)]))
#longest)))))))
Before you dismiss this approach, realize that it just gives you the right answer and you can do some different things with it:
(def coll [2 1 10 9 8 40])
(transduce longest-decreasing conj coll) ;; => [10 9 8]
(transduce longest-decreasing + coll) ;; => 27
(reductions (longest-decreasing conj) [] coll) ;; => ([] [2] [2 1] [2 1] [2 1] [10 9 8] [10 9 8])
Again, I know that this may appear longer but the potential to compose this with other transducers might be worth the effort (not sure if my airity 1 breaks that??)
I believe that iterate can be a more readable substitute for reduce. For example here is the iteratee function that iterate will use to solve this problem:
(defn step-state-hof [op]
(fn [{:keys [unprocessed current answer]}]
(let [[x y & more] unprocessed]
(let [next-current (if (op x y)
(conj current y)
[y])
next-answer (if (> (count next-current) (count answer))
next-current
answer)]
{:unprocessed (cons y more)
:current next-current
:answer next-answer}))))
current is built up until it becomes longer than answer, in which case a new answer is created. Whenever the condition op is not satisfied we start again building up a new current.
iterate itself returns an infinite sequence, so needs to be stopped when the iteratee has been called the right number of times:
(def in [3 2 1 0 -1 2 7 6 7 6 5 4 3 2])
(->> (iterate (step-state-hof >) {:unprocessed (rest in)
:current (vec (take 1 in))})
(drop (- (count in) 2))
first
:answer)
;;=> [7 6 5 4 3 2]
Often you would use a drop-while or take-while to short circuit just when the answer has been obtained. We could so that here however there is no short circuiting required as we know in advance that the inner function of step-state-hof needs to be called (- (count in) 1) times. That is one less than the count because it is processing two elements at a time. Note that first is forcing the final call.
I wanted this order for the form:
reduce
val, col
f
I was able to figure out that this technically satisfies my requirements:
> (apply reduce
(->>
[0 [1 2 3 4]]
(cons
(fn [acc x]
(+ acc x)))))
10
But it's not the easiest thing to read.
This looks much simpler:
> (defn reduce< [val col f]
(reduce f val col))
nil
> (reduce< 0 [1 2 3 4]
(fn [acc x]
(+ acc x)))
10
(< is shorthand for "parameters are rotated left"). Using reduce<, I can see what's being passed to f by the time my eyes get to the f argument, so I can just focus on reading the f implementation (which may get pretty long). Additionally, if f does get long, I no longer have to visually check the indentation of the val and col arguments to determine that they belong to the reduce symbol way farther up. I personally think this is more readable than binding f to a symbol before calling reduce, especially since fn can still accept a name for clarity.
This is a general solution, but the other answers here provide many good alternative ways to solve the specific problem I gave as an example.
I am coming from a Java background trying to learn Clojure. As the best way of learning is by actually writing some code, I took a very simple example of finding even numbers in a vector. Below is the piece of code I wrote:
`
(defn even-vector-2 [input]
(def output [])
(loop [x input]
(if (not= (count x) 0)
(do
(if (= (mod (first x) 2) 0)
(do
(def output (conj output (first x)))))
(recur (rest x)))))
output)
`
This code works, but it is lame that I had to use a global symbol to make it work. The reason I had to use the global symbol is because I wanted to change the state of the symbol every time I find an even number in the vector. let doesn't allow me to change the value of the symbol. Is there a way this can be achieved without using global symbols / atoms.
The idiomatic solution is straightfoward:
(filter even? [1 2 3])
; -> (2)
For your educational purposes an implementation with loop/recur
(defn filter-even [v]
(loop [r []
[x & xs :as v] v]
(if (seq v) ;; if current v is not empty
(if (even? x)
(recur (conj r x) xs) ;; bind r to r with x, bind v to rest
(recur r xs)) ;; leave r as is
r))) ;; terminate by not calling recur, return r
The main problem with your code is you're polluting the namespace by using def. You should never really use def inside a function. If you absolutely need mutability, use an atom or similar object.
Now, for your question. If you want to do this the "hard way", just make output a part of the loop:
(defn even-vector-3 [input]
(loop [[n & rest-input] input ; Deconstruct the head from the tail
output []] ; Output is just looped with the input
(if n ; n will be nil if the list is empty
(recur rest-input
(if (= (mod n 2) 0)
(conj output n)
output)) ; Adding nothing since the number is odd
output)))
Rarely is explicit looping necessary though. This is a typical case for a fold: you want to accumulate a list that's a variable-length version of another list. This is a quick version:
(defn even-vector-4 [input]
(reduce ; Reducing the input into another list
(fn [acc n]
(if (= (rem n 2) 0)
(conj acc n)
acc))
[] ; This is the initial accumulator.
input))
Really though, you're just filtering a list. Just use the core's filter:
(filter #(= (rem % 2) 0) [1 2 3 4])
Note, filter is lazy.
Try
#(filterv even? %)
if you want to return a vector or
#(filter even? %)
if you want a lazy sequence.
If you want to combine this with more transformations, you might want to go for a transducer:
(filter even?)
If you wanted to write it using loop/recur, I'd do it like this:
(defn keep-even
"Accepts a vector of numbers, returning a vector of the even ones."
[input]
(loop [result []
unused input]
(if (empty? unused)
result
(let [curr-value (first unused)
next-result (if (is-even? curr-value)
(conj result curr-value)
result)
next-unused (rest unused) ]
(recur next-result next-unused)))))
This gets the same result as the built-in filter function.
Take a look at filter, even? and vec
check out http://cljs.info/cheatsheet/
(defn even-vector-2 [input](vec(filter even? input)))
If you want a lazy solution, filter is your friend.
Here is a non-lazy simple solution (loop/recur can be avoided if you apply always the same function without precise work) :
(defn keep-even-numbers
[coll]
(reduce
(fn [agg nb]
(if (zero? (rem nb 2)) (conj agg nb) agg))
[] coll))
If you like mutability for "fun", here is a solution with temporary mutable collection :
(defn mkeep-even-numbers
[coll]
(persistent!
(reduce
(fn [agg nb]
(if (zero? (rem nb 2)) (conj! agg nb) agg))
(transient []) coll)))
...which is slightly faster !
mod would be better than rem if you extend the odd/even definition to negative integers
You can also replace [] by the collection you want, here a vector !
In Clojure, you generally don't need to write a low-level loop with loop/recur. Here is a quick demo.
(ns tst.clj.core
(:require
[tupelo.core :as t] ))
(t/refer-tupelo)
(defn is-even?
"Returns true if x is even, otherwise false."
[x]
(zero? (mod x 2)))
; quick sanity checks
(spyx (is-even? 2))
(spyx (is-even? 3))
(defn keep-even
"Accepts a vector of numbers, returning a vector of the even ones."
[input]
(into [] ; forces result into vector, eagerly
(filter is-even? input)))
; demonstrate on [0 1 2...9]
(spyx (keep-even (range 10)))
with result:
(is-even? 2) => true
(is-even? 3) => false
(keep-even (range 10)) => [0 2 4 6 8]
Your project.clj needs the following for spyx to work:
:dependencies [
[tupelo "0.9.11"]
I am playing around and trying to create my own reductions implementation, so far I have this which works with this test data:
((fn [func & args]
(reduce (fn [acc item]
(conj acc (func (last acc) item))
)[(first args)] (first (rest args)))) * 2 [3 4 5]
What I don't like is how I am separating the args.
(first args) is what I would expect, i.e. 2 but (rest args) is ([3 4 5]) and so I am getting the remainder like this (first (rest args)) which I do not like.
Am I missing some trick that makes it easier to work with variadic arguments?
Variadic arguments are just about getting an unspecified number of arguments in a list, so all list/destructuring operations can be applied here.
For example:
(let [[fst & rst] a-list]
; fst is the first element
; rst is the rest
)
This is more readable than:
(let [fst (first a-list)
rst (rest a-list)]
; ...
)
You can go further to get the first and second elements of a list (assuming it has >1 elements) in one line:
(let [fst snd & rst]
; ...
)
I originally misread your question and thought you were trying to reimplement the reduce function. Here is a sample implementation I wrote for this answer which does’t use first or rest:
(defn myreduce
;; here we accept the form with no initial value
;; like in (myreduce * [2 3 4 5]), which is equivalent
;; to (myreduce * 2 [3 4 5]). Notice how we use destructuring
;; to get the first/rest of the list passed as a second
;; argument
([op [fst & rst]] (myreduce op fst rst))
;; we take an operator (function), accumulator and list of elements
([op acc els]
;; no elements? give the accumulator back
(if (empty? els)
acc
;; all the function's logic is in here
;; we're destructuring els to get its first (el) and rest (els)
(let [[el & els] els]
;; then apply again the function on the same operator,
;; using (op acc el) as the new accumulator, and the
;; rest of the previous elements list as the new
;; elements list
(recur op (op acc el) els)))))
I hope it helps you see how to work with list destructuring, which is probably what you want in your function. Here is a relevant blog post on this subject.
Tidying up your function.
As #bfontaine commented, you can use (second args) instead of (first (rest args)):
(defn reductions [func & args]
(reduce
(fn [acc item] (conj acc (func (last acc) item)))
[(first args)]
(second args)))
This uses
func
(first args)
(second args)
... but ignores the rest of args.
So we can use destructuring to name the first and second elements of args - init and coll seem suitable - giving
(defn reductions [func & [init coll & _]]
(reduce
(fn [acc item] (conj acc (func (last acc) item)))
[init]
coll))
... where _ is the conventional name for the ignored argument, in this case a sequence.
We can get rid of it, simplifying to
(defn reductions [func & [init coll]] ... )
... and then to
(defn reductions [func init coll] ... )
... - a straightforward function of three arguments.
Dealing with the underlying problems.
Your function has two problems:
slowness
lack of laziness.
Slowness
The flashing red light in this function is the use of last in
(fn [acc item] (conj acc (func (last acc) item)))
This scans the whole of acc every time it is called, even if acc is a vector. So this reductions takes time proportional to the square of the length of coll: hopelessly slow for long sequences.
A simple fix is to replace (last acc) by (acc (dec (count acc))), which takes effectively constant time.
Lack of laziness
We still can't lazily use what the function produces. For example, it would be nice to encapsulate the sequence of factorials like this:
(def factorials (reductions * 1N (next (range)))))
With your reductions, this definition never returns.
You have to entirely recast your function to make it lazy. Let's modify the standard -lazy -reductions to employ destructuring:
(defn reductions [f init coll]
(cons
init
(lazy-seq
(when-let [[x & xs] (seq coll)]
(reductions f (f init x) xs)))))
Now we can define
(def factorials (reductions * 1N (next (range))))
Then, for example,
(take 10 factorials)
;(1N 1N 2N 6N 24N 120N 720N 5040N 40320N 362880N)
Another approach is to derive the sequence from itself, like a railway locomotive laying the track it travels on:
(defn reductions [f init coll]
(let [answer (lazy-seq (reductions f init coll))]
(cons init (map f answer coll))))
But this contains a hidden recursion (hidden from me, at least):
(nth (reductions * 1N (next (range))) 10000)
;StackOverflowError ...
In the answer to this question the responder uses the function reduced
(defn state [t]
(reduce (fn [[s1 t1] [s2 t2]]
(if (>= t1 t) (**reduced** s1) [s2 (+ t1 t2)]))
(thomsons-lamp)))
I looked at the doc and source and can't fully grok it.
(defn reduced
"Wraps x in a way such that a reduce will terminate with the value x"
{:added "1.5"}
[x]
(clojure.lang.Reduced. x))
In the example above I think (reduced s1) is supposed to end the reduction and return s1.
Is using reduce + reduced equivalent to hypothetical reduce-while or reduce-until functions if either existed?
Reduced provides a way to break out of a reduce with the value provided.
For example to add the numbers in a sequence
(reduce (fn [acc x] (+ acc x)) (range 10))
returns 45
(reduce (fn [acc x] (if (> acc 20) (reduced "I have seen enough") (+ acc x))) (range 10))
returns "I have seen enough"