I wrote a function that tries to get a y/n (yes/no) answer from a user interactively. It tests if the answer is valid and if not, solicits the user again:
(defn get-valid-answer [question]
(println question)
(loop []
(let [ans (.trim (read-line))]
(if (#{"y" "n"} ans)
ans
(do (println "Please answer \"y\"[yes] or \"n\"[no] only!")
(recur) )))))
The above version with loop-recur does the job but I have nagging feeling that there must be a better (more functional) way to do this. I would prefer to have the read-line call made just once. Could anyone suggest an alternative version not using loop-recur in this scenario but possibly using some (Clojure builtin) macro instead?
Think of a small child asking the same question endlessly until it gets a satisfactory reply, then do the same thing in code. That is to say, take the first valid answer from an endless stream of questions.
Untested, but this should do the trick.
(defn ask []
(println "Please answer \"y\"[yes] or \"n\"[no]:")
(.trim (read-line)))
(defn get-valid-answer [question]
(println question)
(->> (repeatedly ask)
(filter #{"y" "n"})
(first)))
You could also define 'ask' in a let binding, if two functions bothers you.
Related
Is there a reasonable way to have multiple def statements happen with destructing the same way that let does it? For Example:
(let [[rtgs pcts] (->> (sort-by second row)
(apply map vector))]
.....)
What I want is something like:
(defs [rtgs pcts] (->> (sort-by second row)
(apply map vector)))
This comes up a lot in the REPL, notebooks and when debugging. Seriously feels like a missing feature so I'd like guidance on one of:
This exists already and I'm missing it
This is a bad idea because... (variable capture?, un-idiomatic?, Rich said so?)
It's just un-needed and I must be suffering from withdrawals from an evil language. (same as: don't mess up our language with your macros)
A super short experiment give me something like:
(defmacro def2 [[name1 name2] form]
`(let [[ret1# ret2#] ~form]
(do (def ~name1 ret1#)
(def ~name2 ret2#))))
And this works as in:
(def2 [three five] ((juxt dec inc) 4))
three ;; => 3
five ;; => 5
Of course and "industrial strength" version of that macro might be:
checking that number of names matches the number of inputs. (return from form)
recursive call to handle more names (can I do that in a macro like this?)
While I agree with Josh that you probably shouldn't have this running in production, I don't see any harm in having it as a convenience at the repl (in fact I think I'll copy this into my debug-repl kitchen-sink library).
I enjoy writing macros (although they're usually not needed) so I whipped up an implementation. It accepts any binding form, like in let.
(I wrote this specs-first, but if you're on clojure < 1.9.0-alpha17, you can just remove the spec stuff and it'll work the same.)
(ns macro-fun
(:require
[clojure.spec.alpha :as s]
[clojure.core.specs.alpha :as core-specs]))
(s/fdef syms-in-binding
:args (s/cat :b ::core-specs/binding-form)
:ret (s/coll-of simple-symbol? :kind vector?))
(defn syms-in-binding
"Returns a vector of all symbols in a binding form."
[b]
(letfn [(step [acc coll]
(reduce (fn [acc x]
(cond (coll? x) (step acc x)
(symbol? x) (conj acc x)
:else acc))
acc, coll))]
(if (symbol? b) [b] (step [] b))))
(s/fdef defs
:args (s/cat :binding ::core-specs/binding-form, :body any?))
(defmacro defs
"Like def, but can take a binding form instead of a symbol to
destructure the results of the body.
Doesn't support docstrings or other metadata."
[binding body]
`(let [~binding ~body]
~#(for [sym (syms-in-binding binding)]
`(def ~sym ~sym))))
;; Usage
(defs {:keys [foo bar]} {:foo 42 :bar 36})
foo ;=> 42
bar ;=> 36
(defs [a b [c d]] [1 2 [3 4]])
[a b c d] ;=> [1 2 3 4]
(defs baz 42)
baz ;=> 42
About your REPL-driven development comment:
I don't have any experience with Ipython, but I'll give a brief explanation of my REPL workflow and you can maybe comment about any comparisons/contrasts with Ipython.
I never use my repl like a terminal, inputting a command and waiting for a reply. My editor supports (emacs, but any clojure editor should do) putting the cursor at the end of any s-expression and sending that to the repl, "printing" the result after the cursor.
I usually have a comment block in the file where I start working, just typing whatever and evaluating it. Then, when I'm reasonably happy with a result, I pull it out of the "repl-area" and into the "real-code".
(ns stuff.core)
;; Real code is here.
;; I make sure that this part always basically works,
;; ie. doesn't blow up when I evaluate the whole file
(defn foo-fn [x]
,,,)
(comment
;; Random experiments.
;; I usually delete this when I'm done with a coding session,
;; but I copy some forms into tests.
;; Sometimes I leave it for posterity though,
;; if I think it explains something well.
(def some-data [,,,])
;; Trying out foo-fn, maybe copy this into a test when I'm done.
(foo-fn some-data)
;; Half-finished other stuff.
(defn bar-fn [x] ,,,)
(keys 42) ; I wonder what happens if...
)
You can see an example of this in the clojure core source code.
The number of defs that any piece of clojure will have will vary per project, but I'd say that in general, defs are not often the result of some computation, let alone the result of a computation that needs to be destructured. More often defs are the starting point for some later computation that will depend on this value.
Usually functions are better for computing a value; and if the computation is expensive, then you can memoize the function. If you feel you really need this functionality, then by all means, use your macro -- that's one of the sellings points of clojure, namely, extensibility! But in general, if you feel you need this construct, consider the possibility that you're relying too much on global state.
Just to give some real examples, I just referenced my main project at work, which is probably 2K-3K lines of clojure, in about 20 namespaces. We have about 20 defs, most of which are marked private and among them, none are actually computing anything. We have things like:
(def path-prefix "/some-path")
(def zk-conn (atom nil))
(def success? #{200})
(def compile* (clojure.core.memoize/ttl compiler {} ...)))
(def ^:private nashorn-factory (NashornScriptEngineFactory.))
(def ^:private read-json (comp json/read-str ... ))
Defining functions (using comp and memoize), enumerations, state via atom -- but no real computation.
So I'd say, based on your bullet points above, this falls somewhere between 2 and 3: it's definitely not a common use case that's needed (you're the first person I've ever heard who wants this, so it's uncommon to me anyway); and the reason it's uncommon is because of what I said above, i.e., it may be a code smell that indicates reliance on too much global state, and hence, would not be very idiomatic.
One litmus test I have for much of my code is: if I pull this function out of this namespace and paste it into another, does it still work? Removing dependencies on external vars allows for easier testing and more modular code. Sometimes we need it though, so see what your requirements are and proceed accordingly. Best of luck!
Consider the following snippet:
(require '[clojure.core.async :refer :all])
(def my-chan (chan (buffer 10)))
(go (while true
(>! my-chan (rand))))
This basically provides a buffered channel, which always contains some 10 random numbers. When the channel is consumed, the buffer is filled again.
Is there an abstraction for this in core.async? As there are transducers for manipulating the consumption of channels, there might be something for the production of them as well:
For sequences one would go for something like this:
(def my-seq
(map (fn [_] (rand)) (range)))
or, just:
(def my-seq (repeatedly rand))
Which of course is not buffered, but it might give an idea of what I'm looking for.
Transducers don't manipulate the consumption of channels -- they affect the values, but they don't affect the consumption of the data on the channel.
You seem to be asking of a way to abstract the creation of a channel, and then get values off of it as a sequence. Here are some ideas, though I'm not convinced that core.async really offers anything above normal clojure.core functionality in this case.
Abstraction is done here the way it usually is done -- with functions. This will call f and put its result on the channel. The implication here is of course that f will be side-effecting, and impure, otherwise it would be quite a boring channel to consume from, with every value being identical.
(defn chan-factory
[f buf]
(let [c (chan buf)]
(go-loop []
(>! c (f))
(recur))
c))
If you then wanted to create a lazy sequence from this, you could do:
(defn chan-to-seq [c]
(lazy-seq
(cons (<!! c) (chan-to-seq c))))
Define your seq:
(def rand-from-chan (chan-to-seq (chan-factory rand 10)))
(take 5 rand-from-chan)
=>
(0.6873518531956767
0.6940302424998631
0.07293052906941855
0.7264083273536271
0.4670275072317531)
However, you can accomplish this same thing by doing:
(def rand-nums (repeatedly rand))
So, while what you're doing is a great thought experiment, it may be more helpful to find some concrete use cases, and then maybe you will receive more specific ideas. Good luck!
I'm trying to write my second macro but I'm completely stuck here.
I would like to avoid writing everytime (vec (for [...])) so I'm trying to write a forv macro like filterv, mapv, etc.
I work mostly with vectors in my programs since I need to have access to the index because I use external buffers/descriptors to fasten matrix process.
I have written many ***v like functions (also adaptative functions like fmap )but I'm sticked with for.
So I wrote
(defmacro forv
[seq-exprs body-expr]
(vec (for (vec seq-exprs) body-expr)))
I tried with seq-exprs alone, it does not work. To be honest I tried also ~ and so on but I do not know how it works, I succeed in my first macro because it was far easier.
Clojure tell me that for requires a vector for binding.
Can someone help me and also explain what I am missing ? Thanks !
You could use the one built into the Tupelo Library. Source code is here: https://github.com/cloojure/tupelo/blob/master/src/tupelo/core.cljc#L181
(defmacro forv
"Like clojure.core/for but returns results in a vector. Equivalent to (into [] (for ...)). Not
lazy."
[& body]
`(vec (for ~#body)))
;;
;; you want something like that in the end: (forv [x (range 2)] x) => (vec (for [x (range 2)] x))
;;
(defmacro forv
[seq-exprs body-expr]
`(vec (for [~#seq-exprs] ~body-expr)))
;;
;; check quote and unquote
;; in particular, check the tricky bit is https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/unquote-splicing
;;
Edit: I based my answer to mimic the original code in the question, but Alan's answer is better than mine.
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 learning clojure and have been using 4clojure.com to get better. I just completed #19 but it seems like maybe I haven't done it quite as the author's have anticipated - like I've perhaps missed the point somehow.
Given the constraint that you cannot use the last function does this seem like a reasonable solution?
#(.get %(- (count %) 1))
If you're going to use:
#(first (reverse %))
You might as well compose the function with "comp":
(comp first reverse)
This is probably a little more idiomatic and easier to read. The same caveat about "reverse" not being lazy applies here.
That's a valid solution. I would go with #(nth % (dec (count %))) as being more idiomatic, but they're functionally equivalent.
What about
reduce (fn [a b] b)
In the blank
Here's a purely recursive approach that doesn't rely on counting:
(defn end [[n & more]]
(if more
(recur more)
n))
Yeah that's a reasonable solution. A few things though:
It's more idiomatic to use the function dec instead of subtracting by one.
#(.get % (dec (count %)))
Follow other people on 4clojure. That way you can see their solutions to the problem after you solve it. I'm working through 4clojure myself and find it very useful to learn about the language, especially certain idioms.
The first solution I thought of would just be to reverse the list and take the first element.
#(first (reverse %))
I don't think my solution is better than anyone else but I think it is another way of solving the same problem:
(fn
[x]
(nth x (- (count x) 1)))
This is using the fn.
I think you can get even simpler with something like (comp peek vec). I think the problem is that last is working with sequences and works in linear time as the documentation says:
clojure.core/last ([coll]) Return the last item in coll, in linear
time
peek on the other hand is faster than last according to the docs:
clojure.core/peek ([coll]) For a list or queue, same as first, for a
vector, same as, but much more efficient than, last. If the
collection is empty, returns nil.
(fn getLast [l] (if (= (count l) 1) (first l) (getLast (rest l))) )