This question similar to say, In clojure, how to apply 'and' to a list?, but solution doesn't apply to my question. every? function returns just a boolean value.
or is a macro, so this code is invalid:
(apply or [nil 10 20]) ; I want to get 10 here, as if 'or was a function.
Using not-every? I will get just boolean value, but I want to preserve semantics of or - the "true" element should be a value of the expression. What is idiomatic way to do this?
My idea so far:
(first (drop-while not [nil 10 20])) ; = 10
you might be able to use some for this:
(some identity [nil 10 20]) ; = 10
Note that this differs from or if it fails
(some identity [false]) ; = nil
(or false) ; = false
A simple macro:
(defmacro apply-or
[coll]
`(or ~#coll))
Or even more abstract
(defmacro apply-macro
[macro coll]
`(~macro ~#coll))
EDIT: Since you complained about that not working in runtime here comes a version of apply-macro that works in runtime. Compare it with answers posted here: In clojure, how to apply a macro to a list?
(defmacro apply-macro-in-runtime
[m c]
`(eval (concat '(~m) ~c)))
Notice that this version utilizes that parameters are passed unevaluated (m is not evaluated, if this was a function, it would throw because a macro doesn't have a value) it uses concat to build a list containing of a list with the quoted macro-name and whatever the evaluation of form c (for coll) returns so that c as (range 5) would be fully evaluated to the list that range returns. Finally it uses eval to evaluate the expression.
Clarification: That obviously uses eval which causes overhead. But notice that eval was also used in the answer linked above.
Also this does not work with large sequences due to the recursive definition of or. It is just good to know that it is possible.
Also for runtime sequences it makes obviously more sense to use some and every?.
Related
I'm trying to write a function which takes a sequence of bindings and an expression and returns the result.
The sequence of bindings are formatted thus: ([:bind-type [bind-vec] ... ) where bind-type is either let or letfn. For example:
([:let [a 10 b 20]] [:letfn [(foo [x] (inc x))]] ... )
And the expression just a regular Clojure expression e.g. (foo (+ a b)) so together this example pair of inputs would yeild 31.
Currently I have this:
(defn wrap-bindings
[[[bind-type bind-vec :as binding] & rest] expr]
(if binding
(let [bind-op (case bind-type :let 'let* :letfn 'letfn*)]
`(~bind-op ~bind-vec ~(wrap-bindings rest expr)))
expr))
(defn eval-with-bindings
([bindings expr]
(eval (wrap-bindings bindings expr))))
I am not very experienced with Clojure and have been told that use of eval is generally bad practice. I do not believe that I can write this as a macro since the bindings and expression may only be given at run-time, so what I am asking is: is there a more idiomatic way of doing this?
eval is almost always not the answer though sometimes rare things happen. In this case you meet the criteria because:
since the bindings and expression may only be given at run-time
You desire arbitrary code to be input and run while the program is going
The binding forms to be used can take any data as it's input, even data from elsewhere in the program
So your existing example using eval is appropriate given the contraints of the question at least as I'm understanding it. Perhaps there is room to change the requirements to allow the expressions to be defined in advance and remove the need for eval, though if not then i'd suggest using what you have.
What's the (most) idiomatic Clojure representation of no-op? I.e.,
(def r (ref {}))
...
(let [der #r]
(match [(:a der) (:b der)]
[nil nil] (do (fill-in-a) (fill-in-b))
[_ nil] (fill-in-b)
[nil _] (fill-in-a)
[_ _] ????))
Python has pass. What should I be using in Clojure?
ETA: I ask mostly because I've run into places (cond, e.g.) where not supplying anything causes an error. I realize that "most" of the time, an equivalent of pass isn't needed, but when it is, I'd like to know what's the most Clojuric.
I see the keyword :default used in cases like this fairly commonly.
It has the nice property of being recognizable in the output and or logs. This way when you see a log line like: "process completed :default" it's obvious that nothing actually ran. This takes advantage of the fact that keywords are truthy in Clojure so the default will be counted as a success.
There are no "statements" in Clojure, but there are an infinite number of ways to "do nothing". An empty do block (do), literally indicates that one is "doing nothing" and evaluates to nil. Also, I agree with the comment that the question itself indicates that you are not using Clojure in an idiomatic way, regardless of this specific stylistic question.
The most analogous thing that I can think of in Clojure to a "statement that does nothing" from imperative programming would be a function that does nothing. There are a couple of built-ins that can help you here: identity is a single-arg function that simply returns its argument, and constantly is a higher-order function that accepts a value, and returns a function that will accept any number of arguments and return that value. Both are useful as placeholders in situations where you need to pass a function but don't want that function to actually do much of anything. A simple example:
(defn twizzle [x]
(let [f (cond (even? x) (partial * 4)
(= 0 (rem x 3)) (partial + 2)
:else identity)]
(f (inc x))))
Rewriting this function to "do nothing" in the default case, while possible, would require an awkward rewrite without the use of identity.
Very new to clojure so might be a noob question but here it is. So I read that the -> macro will invoke functions in sequence and I understand how this works.
(-> (+ 1 2) (* 10)) which results in 30
But why does this not do the same?
(defn testing-> [a b]
(list a b)
first)
This returns a function first and not "a" when called as (testing-> "a" "b"). What am I missing here? Using it in the wrong way?
the -> needs to be in the body of the function. it's not magic attributed to functions ending with -> but literally a macro whose name is -> which takes a sequence of things to do and produces a new expression with the same things nested each inside the next:
(defn testing [a b]
(-> [a b]
list
first))
in this exampel, when the -> macro runs it produces a new expression which looks like:
(defn testing [a b]
(first (list [a b])))
For another example, when you call -> with the arguemnts (+ 1 2) (* 10) it returns the expression (* (+ 1 2) 30) which is then evaluated as normal Clojure code.
PS: a macro is a function which takes a Clojure expression and produces another Clojure expression. These run In the middle of the compilation cycle and you can see what they are doing with the macroexpand-1 function.
A macro is something that restructures its input before it gets compiled.
user> (macroexpand '(-> (+ 1 2) (* 10)))
(* (+ 1 2) 10)
testing-> is a function, not a macro, so it does not restructure the input. You would need to rearrange the input forms before evaluation to get a behavior similar to ->. Every valid form needs to be translated into the standard clojure syntax at compile time, which is done via reader-expansion and macro-expansion.
Macro construction uses standard Clojure functions, but the semantics are somewhat unique (a macro should return the form that will be used at runtime). You can use the clojure.repl/source macro to see how various macros are implemented.
Any operations you need can be expressed as functions, and general creating macros should be avoided unless you need a new syntax.
I'm reading Programming Clojure 2nd edition, and on page 49 it covers Clojure's for loop construct, which it says is actually a sequence comprehension.
The authors suggest the following code:
(defn indexed [coll] (map-indexed vector coll))
(defn index-filter [pred col]
(when pred
(for [[idx elt] (indexed col) :when (pred elt)] idx)))
(index-filter #{\a} "aba")
(0 2)
...is preferable to a Java-based imperative example, and the evidence given is that it "by using higher-order functions...the functional index-of-any avoids all need for variables."
What are "idx", "elt" if they are not variables? Do they mean variables besides the accumulators?
Also, why #{\a} instead of "a"?
pred is a function - #{\a} is a set containing the character a. In Clojure, a set is a function which returns true if its argument \a is contained by it. You could also use #(= % \a) or (fn [x] (= \a x)).
As the other answer implies, "no state was created in the making of this example." idx and elt function like variables, but are local only to the for sequence comprehension, so the code is more compact, not stateful, and arguably clearer (once you're used to sequence comprehensions, at least :-) ) -- perhaps the text is not optimally clear on this point.
There are no variables in functional languages. Actually, you need distinguish variable and value. idx it's just a name bound to concrete value, and you can not reassign it (but you can rebound it to another value).
First parameter of function index-filter is predicate, that means function that return true or false. #{\a} it's a data structure set, but it also can be treated like a function. If you pass element as argument to set function it returns this argument (like true) if element exists and nil (like false) otherwise. So you can think about this set predicate as anonymous function written in more understandable way #(contains? #{\a} %)
At a conceptual level a macro in LISP (and dialects) take a piece of code (as list) and returns another piece of code (again as list).
Based on above principle a simple macro could be:
(defmacro zz [a] (list print a))
;macroexpand says : (#<core$print clojure.core$print#749436> "Hello")
But in clojure this can also be written as:
(defmacro zz [a] `(print ~a))
;macroexpand says : (clojure.core/print "Hello")
I am not exactly sure about the difference here and which should be the preferred way. The first one look simple as we are supposed to return list and avoid using weird characters like back tick.
No one has pointed this out yet...the difference between your 2 macros is this: your second form (using backtick)
(defmacro zz [a] `(print ~a))
is equivalent to:
(defmacro zz [a] (list 'print a))
Which is different from your first example:
(defmacro zz [a] (list print a))
Note the missing single quote -- that is why your macroexpand is different. I agree with the other people posting: using backquote is more conventional if your macro has a fairly simple 'shape'. If you have to do code walking or dynamic construction (i.e. a complex macro), then using lists and building it up is often what's done.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
Constructing lists explicitly is "simplest", in a way, because there are few core concepts you need to know: just accept a list and change it around till you have a new list. Backtick is a convenient shortcut for "templating" chunks of code; it is possible to write any macro without it, but for any large macro it quickly becomes very unpleasant. For example, consider two ways of writing let as a macro over fn:
(defmacro let [bindings & body]
(let [names (take-nth 2 bindings)
vals (take-nth 2 (rest bindings))]
`((fn [~#names]
(do ~#body))
~#vals)))
(defmacro let [bindings & body]
(let [names (take-nth 2 bindings)
vals (take-nth 2 (rest bindings))]
(cons (list `fn (vec names) (cons `do body))
vals)))
In the first case, using backtick makes it fairly clear that you're writing a function of the names containing the body, and then calling it with the values - the macro code is "shaped" the same as the expansion code, so you can imagine what it will look like.
In the second case, with just cons and list all over the place, it is a real headache to work out what the expansion will look like. This isn't always the case, of course: sometimes it can be clearer to write something without a backtick.
Another very important point was made by Kyle Burton: print is not the same as 'print! Your macro expansion should contain the symbol print, not its value (which is a function). Embedding objects (such as functions) in code is very fragile and only works by accident. So make sure your macros expand to code you could actually have written yourself, and let the evaluation system do the hard work - you could type in the symbol print, but you couldn't type in a pointer to the current value of the function print.
There's a style difference between them. Your example is very simple but in more complex macros the difference will be bigger.
For example the unless macro as defined in "The Joy of Clojure" book:
(defmacro unless [condition & body]
`(if (not ~condition)
(do ~#body)))
From the book:
Syntax-quote allows the following if-form to act as a sort of template for the expression
that any use of the macro become when it is expanded.
When creating a macro always choose the most readable and idiomatic style.
To contrast, the above code can equivalently be written like so:
(defmacro unless [condition & body]
(list 'if (list 'not condition)
(list* 'do body)))
In my experience they are equivalent. Though there may be some edge cases I'm not aware of.
#islon 's example can equivalently be written as:
To contrast, the above code can equivalently be written like so:
(defmacro unless [condition & body]
(list 'if (list 'not condition)
(list* 'do body)))