In Clojure, if I have a function f,
(defn f [& r] ... )
and I have a seq args with the arguments I want to call f with, I can easily use apply:
(apply f args)
Now, say I have another function g, which is designed to take any of a number of optional, named arguments - that is, where the rest argument is destructured as a map:
(defn g [& {:keys [a b] :as m}] ... )
I'd normally call g by doing something like
(g :a 1 :b 2)
but if I happen to have a map my-map with the value {:a 1 :b 2}, and I want to "apply" g to my-map - in other words, get something that would end up as the above call, then I naturally couldn't use apply, since it would be equivalent to
(g [:a 1] [:b 2])
Is there a nice way to handle this? May I have gone off track in my design to end up with this? The best solution I can find would be
(apply g (flatten (seq my-map)))
but I surely don't like it. Any better solutions?
EDIT: A slight improvement to the suggested solution might be
(apply g (mapcat seq my-map))
which at least removes one function call, but it may still not be very clear what's going on.
I have stumbled into this problem myself and ended up defining functions to expect one map. A map can have a variable amount of key/value pairs, and if flexible enough, so there is no need for & rest arguments. Also there is no pain with apply. Makes life a lot easier!
(defn g [{:keys [a b] :as m}] ... )
There is no better direct way than converting to a seq.
You are done. You have done all you can.
It's just not really clojurish to have Common Lisp style :keyword arg functions. If you look around Clojure code you will find that almost no functions are written that way.
Even the great RMS is not a fan of them:
"One thing I don't like terribly much is keyword arguments (8). They don't seem quite Lispy to me; I'll do it sometimes but I minimize the times when I do that." (Source)
At the moment where you have to break a complete hash map into pieces just to pass all of them as keyword mapped arguments you should question your function design.
I find that in the case where you want to pass along general options like :consider-nil true you are probably never going to invoke the function with a hash-map {:consider-nil true}.
In the case where you want to do an evaluation based on some keys of a hash map you are 99% of the time having a f ([m & args]) declaration.
When I started out defining functions in Clojure I hit the same problem. However after thinking more about the problems I tried to solve I noticed myself using destructoring in function declaration almost never.
Here is a very simplistic function which may be used exactly as apply, except that the final arg (which should be a map) will be expanded out to :key1 val1 :key2 val2 etc.
(defn mapply
[f & args]
(apply f (reduce concat (butlast args) (last args))))
I'm sure there are more efficient ways to do it, and whether or not you'd want to end up in a situation where you'd have to use such a function is up for debate, but it does answer the original question. Mostly, I'm childishly satisfied with the name...
Nicest solution I have found:
(apply g (apply concat my-map))
Related
Suppose I've got a function (remove-bad-nodes g) that returns a sequence like this:
[updated-g bad-nodes]
where updated-g is a graph with its bad nodes removed, and bad-nodes is a collection containing the removed nodes.
As an argument to a function or inside a let, I could destructure it like this:
(let [[g bads] (remove-bad-nodes g)]
...)
but that only defines local variables. How could I do that in the REPL, so that in future commands I can refer to the updated graph as g and the removed nodes as bads? The first thing that comes to mind is this:
(def [g bads] (remove-bad-nodes g)
but that doesn't work, because def needs its first argument to be a Symbol.
Note that I'm not asking why def doesn't have syntax like let; there's already a question about that. I'm wondering what is a convenient, practical way to work in the REPL with functions that return "multiple values". If there's some reason why in normal Clojure practice there's no need to destructure in the REPL, because you do something else instead, explaining that might make a useful answer. I've been running into this a lot lately, which is why I'm asking. Usually, but not always, these functions return an updated version of something along with some other information. In side-effecting code, the function would modify the object and return only one value (the removed nodes, in the example), but obviously that's not the Clojurely way to do it.
I think the way to work with such functions in the repl is just to not def your intermediate results unless they are particularly interesting; for interesting-enough intermediate results it's not a big hassle to either def them to a single name, or to write multiple defs inside a destructuring form.
For example, instead of
(def [x y] (foo))
(def [a b] (bar x y))
you could write
(let [[x y] (foo),
[x' y'] (bar x y)])
(def a x') ; or maybe leave this out if `a` isn't that interesting
(def b y'))
A nice side effect of this is that the code you write while playing around in the repl will look much more similar to the code you will one day add to your source file, where you will surely not be defing things over and over, but rather destructuring them, passing them to functions, and so on. It will be easier to adapt the information you learned at the repl into a real program.
There's nothing unique about destructuring w/r/t the REPL. The answer to your question is essentially the same as this question. I think your options are:
let:
(let [[light burnt just-right] (classify-toasts (make-lots-of-toast))]
(prn light burnt just-right))
def the individual values:
(def result (classify-toasts (make-lots-of-toast)))
(def light (nth result 0))
(def burnt (nth result 1))
(def just-right (nth result 2))
Or write a macro to do that def work for you.
You could also consider a different representation if your function is always returning a 3-tuple/vector e.g. you could alternatively return a map from classify-toasts:
{:light 1, :burnt 2, :just-right 3}
And then when you need one of those values, destructure the map using the keywords wherever you need:
(:light the-map) => 1
Observe:
user=> (def results [1 2 3])
#'user/results
user=> (let [[light burnt just-right] results] (def light light) (def burnt burnt) (def just-right just-right))
#'user/just-right
user=> light
1
user=> burnt
2
user=> just-right
3
say I have a function like this:
(defn my-f [a & [b]]
(if (nil? b)
(my-other-f a)
(my-other-f a b)))
This of course is a simplification. It's a wrapper function for another function - and in reality a is processed inside this function.
If the optional argument b is not passed to my-f, it should also not be passed to my-other-f.
I was thinking of another way to achieve this:
(defn my-f [a & [b]]
(apply my-other-f (make-list-of-not-nil-entries a b)))
Is there maybe a built-in function doing this job?
Example
Sometimes, being too abstract is confusing, so I'm providing the real case here. The following ClojureScript code works, it's purpose is obviously to try different browser-specific options in order to get a "webgl" context from an HTML canvas element.
(defn create-ctx [canvas & [options]]
(some (if options
#(.getContext canvas % (clj->js options))
#(.getContext canvas %))
["webgl" "experimental-webgl" "webkit-3d" "moz-webgl"]))
The given Canvas element's method getContext awaits actually one argument, and another one which is optional. The above wrapper functions has the same arity.
I just wanted to see, if there is a quick way to avoid the explicit switch for the 1 and the 2 arity function call.
I would argue that your first solution is much more readable and explicit about its intention. It will also have much better performance than the one with apply.
If you still want to go with apply, the shortest solution using clojure.core would be:
(remove nil? [a b])
Or
(keep identity [a b])
Or
(filter some? [a b])
I am not aware of any built in function which takes varargs and returns a seq of only non nil elements. You could create one:
(defn non-nils [& args]
(remove nil? args)
Or use ignoring-nils from flatland.useful.fn.
I'm trying to find a way to thread a value through a list of functions.
Firstly, I had a usual ring-based code:
(defn make-handler [routes]
(-> routes
(wrap-json-body)
(wrap-cors)
;; and so on
))
But this was not optimal as I wanted to write a test to check the routes are actually wrapped with wrap-cors. I decided to extract the wrappers into a def. So the code became as follows:
(def middleware
(list ('wrap-json-body)
('wrap-cors)
;; and so on
))
(defn make-handler [routes]
(-> routes middleware))
This apparently doesn't work and is not supposed to as the -> macro doesn't take a list as the second argument. So I tried to use the apply function to resolve that:
(defn make-handler [routes]
(apply -> routes middleware))
Which eventually bailed out with:
CompilerException java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't take value of a
macro: #'clojure.core/->
So the question arises: How does one pass a list of values to the -> macro (or, say, any other macro) as one would do with apply for a function?
This is an XY Problem.
The main point of -> is to make code easier to read. But if one writes a new macro solely in order to use -> (in code nobody will ever see because it exists only at macro-expansion), it seems to me that this is doing a lot of work for no benefit. Moreover, I believe it obscures, rather than clarifies, the code.
So, in the spirit of never using a macro where functions will do, I suggest the following two equivalent solutions:
Solution 1
(reduce #(%2 %) routes middleware)
Solution 2
((apply comp middleware) routes)
A Better Way
The second solution is easily simplified by changing the definition of middleware from being a list of the functions to being the composition of the functions:
(def middleware
(comp wrap-json-body
wrap-cors
;; and so on
))
(middleware routes)
When I began learning Clojure, I ran across this pattern often enough that many of my early projects have an freduce defined in core:
(defn freduce
"Given an initial input and a collection of functions (f1,..,fn),
This is logically equivalent to ((comp fn ... f1) input)."
[in fs]
(reduce #(%2 %) in fs))
This is totally unnecessary, and some might prefer the direct use of reduce as being more clear. However, if you don't like staring at #(%2 %) in your application code, adding another utility word to your language is fine.
you can make a macro for that:
;; notice that it is better to use a back quote, to qoute function names for macro, as it fully qualifies them.
(def middleware
`((wrap-json-body)
(wrap-cors))
;; and so on
)
(defmacro with-middleware [routes]
`(-> ~routes ~#middleware))
for example this:
(with-middleware [1 2 3])
would expand to this:
(-> [1 2 3] (wrap-json-body) (wrap-cors))
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.
I'm inspired by clojure's 1.5 cond-> macro.
Similarily, I want to create a macro of the same idea, applied to the function map. However, I have no idea where to start.
For example, I can't find the source for cond->. (probably because it's not released yet)
Any suggestions?
There is the source of cond-> https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/clj/clojure/core.clj#L6742
there are a variety of threading macros from the pallet project folks including apply-map-> which looks close to, though not exactly what you are looking for.
(letfn [(apply-map-
[arg f arg-coll]
`(let [arg# ~arg]
(apply ~f arg#
~#(butlast arg-coll)
(apply concat ~(last arg-coll)))))]
(defmacro apply-map->
"Apply in a threaded expression.
e.g.
(-> :a
(apply-map-> hash-map 1 {:b 2}))
=> {:a 1 :b 2}"
[arg f & arg-coll]
(apply-map- arg f arg-coll))
Perhaps there will be enough examples there for you to pick out what you need.
If I understand -- you want to write a macro that takes a list of partial function calls, and for each one, adds map (or apply map) to the beginning, and the previous result to the end?
While this doesn't directly answer how to write that macro, I wanted to point out that you have a couple of alternatives.
Factor out map
This is always true for pure functions:
(=
(map g (map f coll))
(map (comp g f) coll))
The refactored version only walks the collection once, and no intermediate collections need to be made.
Here's what it looks like with threading:
(=
(->> coll
(map f)
(map g))
(map #(->> % f g) coll))
Here's a concrete example in JS.
Transducers
Transducers are another pattern for doing this kind of thing in Clojure that work on more than just map. They're sort of an abstraction over reducer functions. Clojure's map / filter / reduce (etc.) will create a transducer if called without a collection. You can chain them with comp and use them in various contexts (lazy, eager, observable, whatever). Rich Hickey's talk on them is a good intro.