I am trying to delay various calculations. I have functions of the following form,
(defn a-fn [a b]
(let [a (if (fn? a)
a
#(identity a))
b (if (fn? b)
b
#(identity b))]
(+ (a) (b))))
this allows me to pass a-fn, a value or a function that returns the value,
(a-fn 1 2)
(defn x [] 1)
(defn y [] 2)
(a-fn x y)
(a-fn x 2)
what I do is build a list of functions (like the one above) to operate on some data, fns may use other fns to retrieve their arguments or in some cases things don't change and they are assigned values as arguments. I was wondering is there a better way to achive this kind of behavior?
You can use delay and force:
user=> (defn a-fn [a b] (+ (force a) (force b)))
#'user/a-fn
user=> (a-fn 1 2)
3
user=> (def x (delay 1))
#'user/x
user=> (def y (delay 2))
#'user/y
user=> (a-fn x y)
3
user=> (a-fn x 2)
3
If you try something like (delay (prn :hello) 1) to test when the computation is done, note that printing the Delay object forces it; so (def x (delay ...)) is safe, but typing a plain (delay ...) in the REPL prompt is not.
There might be a more elegant way to do what you want, but here's at least a more generic version of it:
(defn delayed [reducer & fs]
(apply reducer (for [f fs] (if (fn? f) (f) f))))
(def a-fn (partial delayed +))
So delayed takes an arbitrary function and a list of function/values. If expands all the args and then applies the function to them. Then we use partial to define your a-fn using +:
user=> (a-fn 1 2)
3
user=> (a-fn (constantly 1) 2)
3
user=> (a-fn (constantly 1) 2 4)
7
Alternatively, it might make sense for delayed to return a function rather than using partial. Note sure which is better.
A better name than "delayed" is welcome :)
Related
I'm trying to estimate the mean distance of all pairs of points in a unit square.
This transducer returns a vector of the distances of x randomly selected pairs of points, but the final step would be to take the mean of all values in that vector. Is there a way to use mean as the final reducing function (or to include it in the composition)?
(defn square [x] (* x x))
(defn mean [x] (/ (reduce + x) (count x)))
(defn xform [iterations]
(comp
(partition-all 4)
(map #(Math/sqrt (+ (square (- (first %) (nth % 1)))
(square (- (nth % 2) (nth % 3))))))
(take iterations)))
(transduce (xform 5) conj (repeatedly #(rand)))
[0.5544757422041136
0.4170515673848907
0.7457675423415904
0.5560901974277822
0.6053573945754688]
(transduce (xform 5) mean (repeatedly #(rand)))
Execution error (ArityException) at test.core/eval19667 (form-init9118116578029918666.clj:562).
Wrong number of args (0) passed to: test.core/mean
If you implement your mean function differently, you won't have to collect all the values before computing the mean. Here is how you can implement it, based on this Java code:
(defn mean
([] [0 1]) ;; <-- Construct an empty accumulator
([[mu n]] mu) ;; <-- Get the mean (final step)
([[mu n] x] ;; <-- Accumulate a value to the mean
[(+ mu (/ (- x mu) n)) (inc n)]))
And you use it like this:
(transduce identity mean [1 2 3 4])
;; => 5/2
or like this:
(transduce (xform 5) mean (repeatedly #(rand)))
;; => 0.582883812837961
From the docs of transduce:
If init is not supplied, (f) will be called to produce it. f should be
a reducing step function that accepts both 1 and 2 arguments, if it
accepts only 2 you can add the arity-1 with 'completing'.
To disect this:
Your function needs 0-arity to produce an initial value -- so conj
is fine (it produces an empty vector).
You need to provide a 2-arity function to do the actual redudcing
-- again conj is fine here
You need to provide a 1-arity function to finalize - here you want
your mean.
So as the docs suggest, you can use completing to just provide that:
(transduce (xform 5) (completing conj mean) (repeatedly #(rand)))
; → 0.4723186070904141
If you look at the source of completing you will see how it produces
all of this:
(defn completing
"Takes a reducing function f of 2 args and returns a fn suitable for
transduce by adding an arity-1 signature that calls cf (default -
identity) on the result argument."
{:added "1.7"}
([f] (completing f identity))
([f cf]
(fn
([] (f))
([x] (cf x))
([x y] (f x y)))))
Sometimes I want to pass argument-value pairs to a higher-order function, where the value I should pass is determined by the argument I pass. I want to be able to pass the argument without explicitly specifying the accompanying value. In particular, I'm interested in the case where the argument is itself a function.
Generic Example:
Here's a very generic example, where my-foo and my-bar are functions that I'm passing to higher-foo:
(higher-foo my-foo :option4 args) ;good
(higher-foo my-bar :option13 args) ;good
(higher-foo my-foo :option13 args) ;how stupid are you?! my-foo requires :option4!
Question: Is there a "standard" method for making :option4 or :option13 to be inferable by higher-foo so that I can just write (higher-foo my-foo) and (higher-foo my-bar)?
More Specific Example:
Bear in mind that there are better alternatives to the following code, but I'm just trying to put forward a concrete example of what I'm talking about:
(defn seq-has? [f n someseq]
(every? (partial apply f)
(partition n 1 someseq)))
(defn monotonicity [a b]
(<= a b))
(defn generalized-fib [a b c]
(= c (+ a b)))
(seq-has? monotonicity 2 someseq) should return true if the sequence is monotonic, false otherwise. (seq-has? generalized-fib 3 someseq) should return true if the sequence follows the generalized Fibonacci form, false otherwise.
But the "2" and "3" bother me. I could have an arbitrary number of properties to test for, and I don't want to have to remember the appropriate "magic numbers" for such calls.
Note: I know of two ways to do this, and for my own personal use, I suppose they both work. But I'm interested in what is idiomatic or considered best practice in the community. I'll post my answers, but I'm hoping there are more solutions.
Just make the predicate function itself take variadic arguments, and have it do the partitioning / recurring. Your monotonic? for instance already exists in core, and is called <=
(<= 1 2 4 5)
=> true
(<= 1 2 1 5)
=> false
Here's the source for the 1, 2 and variadic arg versions:
(source <=)
(defn <=
"Returns non-nil if nums are in monotonically non-decreasing order,
otherwise false."
{:inline (fn [x y] `(. clojure.lang.Numbers (lte ~x ~y)))
:inline-arities #{2}
:added "1.0"}
([x] true)
([x y] (. clojure.lang.Numbers (lte x y)))
([x y & more]
(if (<= x y)
(if (next more)
(recur y (first more) (next more))
(<= y (first more)))
false)))
You can make a fib? work the same way, have it take variadic arguments and recur over triples:
(defn fib?
[a b & [c & r]]
(if (= c (+ a b))
(if r
(recur b c r)
true)
false))
(fib? 0 1 1)
=> true
(fib? 2 3 5 8 13)
=> true
Since you are asking for a standard way how a function determines a not passed argument from one argument:
(defn f
([arg0] (case a :foo (f a :bar)
:baz (f a :quux)))
([arg0 arg1] ...))
Depending on your use case a different dispatch construct than case may be a better fit.
For your generic example this implies that higher-foo should determine the correct :option in the desired overload like demonstrated above.
In your specific example, you can't determine the n from the passed function. You need a more specific datastructure:
(defn seq-has? [{:keys [f n]} s]
(every? (partial apply f)
(partition n 1 s)))
(def monotonicity
{:f <=
:n 2})
(def generalized-fib
{:f #(= (+ %1 %2) %3)
:n 3})
(seq-has? monotonicity [1 2 3])
;; => true
This solution seems like a hack to me. Is it considered common/idiomatic? Use meta-data on the functions that define the property you are looking for:
(defn higher-foo [foo & args]
(apply foo (:option (meta foo))
args))
(def my-foo
(with-meta
(fn [a b] (println "I'm doing something cool"))
{:option :option4}))
;using it:
user=> (higher-foo my-foo arg)
the other day I was trying to come up with an example of closure in Clojure. I came up with and example I had seen before and thought it was appropriate.
Alas, I was told it was not a good one and that I should provide something with let.
Can anyone shed some light?
(defn pow [x n] (apply * (repeat x n)))
(defn sq [y] (pow y 2))
(defn qb [y] (pow y 3))
A closure is a function that has access to some named value/variable outside its own scope, so from a higher scope surrounding the function when it was created (this excludes function arguments and local named values created within the function). Your examples do not qualify, because every function just uses named values from their own scopes.
Example:
(def foo
(let [counter (atom 0)]
(fn [] (do (swap! counter inc) #counter))))
(foo) ;;=> 1
(foo) ;;=> 2
(foo) ;;=> 3, etc
Now foo is a function that returns the value of an atom that is outside its scope. Because the function still holds a reference to that atom, the atom will not be garbage-collected as long as foo is needed.
Function that returns function i.e higher order functions are nice examples of closure.
(defn pow [n]
(fn [x] (apply * (repeat n x))))
(def sq (pow 2))
(def qb (pow 3))
Another example of closure. There are two functions that share the same environment (state).
(defn create-object [init-state]
(let [state (atom init-state)]
{:getter (fn []
#state)
:setter (fn [new-val]
(reset! state new-val))}))
(defn test-it []
(let [{:keys [setter getter]} (create-object :init-value)]
(println (getter))
(setter :new-value)
(println (getter))))
(test-it)
=> :init-value
:new-value
I wanted to have something that setup constant value(s) that are to be used each time.
(def myran
(let [constrand (rand)]
(fn [n] (* n constrand))))
(myran 3)
2.7124521745892096
(myran 1)
0.9041507248630699
(myran 3)
2.7124521745892096
This will only set a value for "constrand" once. This is a very contrived example, but I wanted to be able to do something like:
This is from: JavaScript: The Good Parts
it seem like clojure's let is sequential and would correspond to a scheme let* .
Does clojure have an unsequential binding mechanism like scheme's let?
I believe binding macro is parallel not sequential.
See: http://clojuredocs.org/clojure_core/clojure.core/binding
letfn is a parallel binding form for functions that exists to allow people to write mutually recursive local functions. It's not quite as general as you seek though it can be used in a pinch.
user> (letfn [(a [] 4)
(b [] c)
(c [] a)]
(a))
4
Binding can be used so long as you are assigning values to things in vars and want dynamic scoping
user> (def ^:dynamic x 4)
#'user/x
user> (defn foo [] x)
#'user/foo
user> (binding [x 8] (+ x (foo)))
16 ; the value of x that gets called by foo is modified by the caller
; yielding 16 instead of 12
user> (binding [x 8 a 7] (+ x (foo)))
; Evaluation aborted.
Unable to resolve var: a in this context
if you try to use parallel bindings the dynamic scoping will give different results than let* would in Scheme
user> (def ^:dynamic a 2)
#'user/a
user> (binding [x 8 a 7] (+ x a))
15
user> (binding [x 8 a (+ x 2)] (+ x a))
14 ; this would be 18 if the binding of x to 8 had been used
; instead the root value of 4 was used.
In general It is most common to bind sequentially or use nested lets if required.
binding doesn't give you the same capability as a parallel let because it depends on the existence of bindings. As mentioned letfn will work as long as you don't mind wrapping your values in functions. Another solution is to write a parallel let using a macro:
(defmacro letp
[bindings & exprs]
(let [bindings (partition 2 bindings)
vars (->> bindings (map first) vec)
values (->> bindings (map second))]
`((fn ~vars ~#exprs)
~#values)))
So the following holds:
(def a 7)
(letp [a 5 b a] b)
;;=> 7
I know that the -> form can be used to pass the results of one function result to another:
(f1 (f2 (f3 x)))
(-> x f3 f2 f1) ; equivalent to the line above
(taken from the excellent Clojure tutorial at ociweb)
However this form requires that you know the functions you want to use at design time. I'd like to do the same thing, but at run time with a list of arbitrary functions.
I've written this looping function that does it, but I have a feeling there's a better way:
(defn pipe [initialData, functions]
(loop [
frontFunc (first functions)
restFuncs (rest functions)
data initialData ]
(if frontFunc
(recur (first restFuncs) (rest restFuncs) (frontFunc data) )
data )
) )
What's the best way to go about this?
I must admit I'm really new to clojure and I might be missing the point here completely, but can't this just be done using comp and apply?
user> (defn fn1 [x] (+ 2 x))
user> (defn fn2 [x] (/ x 3))
user> (defn fn3 [x] (* 1.2 x))
user> (defn pipe [initial-data my-functions] ((apply comp my-functions) initial-data))
user> (pipe 2 [fn1 fn2 fn3])
2.8
You can do this with a plain old reduce:
(defn pipe [x fs] (reduce (fn [acc f] (f acc)) x fs))
That can be shortened to:
(defn pipe [x fs] (reduce #(%2 %1) x fs))
Used like this:
user> (pipe [1 2 3] [#(conj % 77) rest reverse (partial map inc) vec])
[78 4 3]
If functions is a sequence of functions, you can reduce it using comp to get a composed function. At a REPL:
user> (def functions (list #(* % 5) #(+ % 1) #(/ % 3)))
#'user/my-list
user> ((reduce comp functions) 9)
20
apply also works in this case because comp takes a variable number of arguments:
user> (def functions (list #(* % 5) #(+ % 1) #(/ % 3)))
#'user/my-list
user> ((apply comp functions) 9)
20