How have you used metadata in your Clojure program?
I saw one example from Programming Clojure:
(defn shout [#^{:tag String} message] (.toUpperCase message))
;; Clojure casts message to String and then calls the method.
What are some uses? This form of programming is completely new to me.
Docstrings are stored as metadata under the :doc key. This is probably the number 1 most apparent use of metadata.
Return and parameter types can be optionally tagged with metadata to improve performance by avoiding the overhead of reflecting on the types at runtime. These are also known as "type hints." #^String is a type hint.
Storing things "under the hood" for use by the compiler, such as the arglist of a function, the line number where a var has been defined, or whether a var holds a reference to a macro. These are usually automatically added by the compiler and normally don't need to be manipulated directly by the user.
Creating simple testcases as part of a function definition:
(defn #^{:test (fn [] (assert true))} something [] nil)
(test #'something)
If you are reading Programming Clojure, then Chapter 2 provides a good intro to metadata. Figure 2.3 provides a good summary of common metadata.
For diversity some answer, which does not concentrate on interaction with the language itself:
You can also eg. track the source of some data. Unchecked input is marked as :tainted. A validator might check things and then set the status to :clean. Code doing security relevant things might then barf on :tainted and only accept :cleaned input.
Meta Data was extremely useful for me for purposes of typing. I'm talking not just about type hints, but about complete custom type system. Simplest example - overloading of print-method for structs (or any other var):
(defstruct my-struct :foo :bar :baz)
(defn make-my-struct [foo bar baz]
(with-meta (struct-map my-struct :foo foo :bar baz :baz baz)
{:type ::my-struct}))
(defmethod print-method
[my-struct writer]
(print-method ...))
In general, together with Clojure validation capabilities it may increase safety and, at the same time, flexibility of your code very very much (though it will take some more time to do actual coding).
For more ideas on typing see types-api.
metadata is used by the compiler extensively for things like storing the type of an object.
you use this when you give type hints
(defn foo [ #^String stringy] ....
I have used it for things like storing the amount of padding that was added to a number. Its intended for information that is 'orthogonal' to the data and should not be considered when deciding if you values are the same.
Related
I'm quite new to functional programming and clojure. I like it.
I'd like to know what the community thinks about following fn-naming approach:
Is it a feasible way to go with such naming, or is it for some reason something to avoid?
Example:
(defn coll<spec>?
"Checks wether the given thing is a collection of elements of ::spec-type"
[spec-type thing]
(and (coll? thing)
(every? #(spec/valid? spec-type %)
thing)))
(defn coll<spec>?nil
"Checks if the given thing is a collection of elements of ::spec-type or nil"
[spec-type thing]
(or (nil? thing)
(coll<spec>? spec-type thing)))
now ... somewhere else I'm using partial applications in clojure defrecrod/specs ...
similar to this:
; somewhere inside a defrecord
^{:spec (partial p?/coll<spec>?nil ::widgets)} widgets component-widgets
now, I created this for colls, sets, hash-maps with a generic-like form for specs (internal application of spec/valid? ...) and with a direct appication of predicates and respectively a <p> instead of the <spec>
currently I'm discussing with my colleagues wether this is a decent and meaningful and useful approach - since it is at least valid to name function like this in clojure - or wether the community thinks this is rather a no-go.
I'd very much like your educated opinions on that.
It's a weird naming convention, but a lot of projects use weird naming conventions because their authors believe they help. I imagine if I read your codebase, variable naming conventions would probably not be the thing that surprises me most. This is not an insult: every project has some stuff that surprises me.
But I don't see why you need these specific functions at all. As Sean Corfield says in a comment, there are good spec combinator functions to build fancier specs out of simpler ones. Instead of writing coll<spec>?, you could just combine s/valid? with s/coll-of:
(s/valid? (s/coll-of spec-type) thing)
Likewise you can use s/or and nil? to come up with coll<spec>?nil.
(s/valid? (s/or nil? (s/coll-of spec-type) thing))
This is obviously more to write at each call site than a mere coll<spec>?nil, so you may dismiss my advice. But the point is you can extract functions for defining these specs, and use those specs.
(defn nil-or-coll-of [spec]
(s/or nil? (s/coll-of spec)))
(s/valid? (nil-or-coll-of spec-type) thing)
Importantly, this means you could pass the result of nil-or-coll-of to some other function that expects a spec, perhaps to build a larger spec out of it, or to try to conform it. You can't do that if all your functions have s/valid? baked into them.
Think in terms of composing general functions, not defining a new function from scratch for each thing you want to do.
(def evil-code (str "(" (slurp "/mnt/src/git/clj/clojure/src/clj/clojure/core.clj") ")" ))
(def r (read-string evil-code ))
Works, but unsafe
(def r (clojure.edn/read-string evil-code))
RuntimeException Map literal must contain an even number of forms clojure.lang.Util.runtimeException (Util.java:219)
Does not work...
How to read Clojure code (presering all '#'s as themselves is desirable) into a tree safely? Imagine a Clojure antivirus that want to scan the code for threats and wants to work with data structure, not with plain text.
First of all you should never read clojure code directly from untrusted data sources. You should use EDN or another serialization format instead.
That being said since Clojure 1.5 there is a kind of safe way to read strings without evaling them. You should bind the read-eval var to false before using read-string. In Clojure 1.4 and earlier this potentially resulted in side effects caused by java constructors being invoked. Those problems have since been fixed.
Here is some example code:
(defn read-string-safely [s]
(binding [*read-eval* false]
(read-string s)))
(read-string-safely "#=(eval (def x 3))")
=> RuntimeException EvalReader not allowed when *read-eval* is false. clojure.lang.Util.runtimeException (Util.java:219)
(read-string-safely "(def x 3)")
=> (def x 3)
(read-string-safely "#java.io.FileWriter[\"precious-file.txt\"]")
=> RuntimeException Record construction syntax can only be used when *read-eval* == true clojure.lang.Util.runtimeException (Util.java:219)
Regarding reader macro's
The dispatch macro (#) and tagged literals are invoked at read time. There is no representation for them in Clojure data since by that time these constructs all have been processed. As far as I know there is no build in way to generate a syntax tree of Clojure code.
You will have to use an external parser to retain that information. Either you roll your own custom parser or you can use a parser generator like Instaparse and ANTLR. A complete Clojure grammar for either of those libraries might be hard to find but you could extend one of the EDN grammars to include the additional Clojure forms. A quick google revealed an ANTLR grammar for Clojure syntax, you could alter it to support the constructs that are missing if needed.
There is also Sjacket a library made for Clojure tools that need to retain information about the source code itself. It seems like a good fit for what you are trying to do but I don't have any experience with it personally. Judging from the tests it does have support for reader macro's in its parser.
According to the current documentation you should never use read nor read-string to read from untrusted data sources.
WARNING: You SHOULD NOT use clojure.core/read or
clojure.core/read-string to read data from untrusted sources. They
were designed only for reading Clojure code and data from trusted
sources (e.g. files that you know you wrote yourself, and no one
else has permission to modify them).
You should use read-edn or clojure.edn/read which were designed with that purpose in mind.
There was a long discussion in the mailing list regarding the use of read and read-eval and best practices regarding those.
I wanted to point out an old library (used in LightTable) that uses read-stringwith a techniques to propose a client/server communication
Fetch : A ClojureScript library for Client/Server interaction.
You can see in particular the safe-read method :
(defn safe-read [s]
(binding [*read-eval* false]
(read-string s)))
You can see the use of binding *read-eval* to false.
I think the rest of the code is worth watching at for the kind of abstractions it proposes.
In a PR, it is suggested that there is a security problem that can be fixed by using edn instead (...aaand back to your question) :
(require '[clojure.edn :as edn])
(defn safe-read [s]
(edn/read-string s))
I have a defrecord called a bag. It behaves like a list of item to count. This is sometimes called a frequency or a census. I want to be able to do the following
(def b (bag/create [:k 1 :k2 3])
(keys bag)
=> (:k :k1)
I tried the following:
(defrecord MapBag [state]
Bag
(put-n [self item n]
(let [new-n (+ n (count self item))]
(MapBag. (assoc state item new-n))))
;... some stuff
java.util.Map
(getKeys [self] (keys state)) ;TODO TEST
Object
(toString [self]
(str ("Bag: " (:state self)))))
When I try to require it in a repl I get:
java.lang.ClassFormatError: Duplicate interface name in class file compile__stub/techne/bag/MapBag (bag.clj:12)
What is going on? How do I get a keys function on my bag? Also am I going about this the correct way by assuming clojure's keys function eventually calls getKeys on the map that is its argument?
Defrecord automatically makes sure that any record it defines participates in the ipersistentmap interface. So you can call keys on it without doing anything.
So you can define a record, and instantiate and call keys like this:
user> (defrecord rec [k1 k2])
user.rec
user> (def a-rec (rec. 1 2))
#'user/a-rec
user> (keys a-rec)
(:k1 :k2)
Your error message indicates that one of your declarations is duplicating an interface that defrecord gives you for free. I think it might actually be both.
Is there some reason why you cant just use a plain vanilla map for your purposes? With clojure, you often want to use plain vanilla data structures when you can.
Edit: if for whatever reason you don't want the ipersistentmap included, look into deftype.
Rob's answer is of course correct; I'm posting this one in response to the OP's comment on it -- perhaps it might be helpful in implementing the required functionality with deftype.
I have once written an implementation of a "default map" for Clojure, which acts just like a regular map except it returns a fixed default value when asked about a key not present inside it. The code is in this Gist.
I'm not sure if it will suit your use case directly, although you can use it to do things like
user> (:earth (assoc (DefaultMap. 0 {}) :earth 8000000000))
8000000000
user> (:mars (assoc (DefaultMap. 0 {}) :earth 8000000000))
0
More importantly, it should give you an idea of what's involved in writing this sort of thing with deftype.
Then again, it's based on clojure.core/emit-defrecord, so you might look at that part of Clojure's sources instead... It's doing a lot of things which you won't have to (because it's a function for preparing macro expansions -- there's lots of syntax-quoting and the like inside it which you have to strip away from it to use the code directly), but it is certainly the highest quality source of information possible. Here's a direct link to that point in the source for the 1.2.0 release of Clojure.
Update:
One more thing I realised might be important. If you rely on a special map-like type for implementing this sort of thing, the client might merge it into a regular map and lose the "defaulting" functionality (and indeed any other special functionality) in the process. As long as the "map-likeness" illusion maintained by your type is complete enough for it to be used as a regular map, passed to Clojure's standard function etc., I think there might not be a way around that.
So, at some level the client will probably have to know that there's some "magic" involved; if they get correct answers to queries like (:mars {...}) (with no :mars in the {...}), they'll have to remember not to merge this into a regular map (merge-ing the other way around would work fine).
I've found myself using the following idiom lately in clojure code.
(def *some-global-var* (ref {}))
(defn get-global-var []
#*global-var*)
(defn update-global-var [val]
(dosync (ref-set *global-var* val)))
Most of the time this isn't even multi-threaded code that might need the transactional semantics that refs give you. It just feels like refs are for more than threaded code but basically for any global that requires immutability. Is there a better practice for this? I could try to refactor the code to just use binding or let but that can get particularly tricky for some applications.
I always use an atom rather than a ref when I see this kind of pattern - if you don't need transactions, just a shared mutable storage location, then atoms seem to be the way to go.
e.g. for a mutable map of key/value pairs I would use:
(def state (atom {}))
(defn get-state [key]
(#state key))
(defn update-state [key val]
(swap! state assoc key val))
Your functions have side effects. Calling them twice with the same inputs may give different return values depending on the current value of *some-global-var*. This makes things difficult to test and reason about, especially once you have more than one of these global vars floating around.
People calling your functions may not even know that your functions are depending on the value of the global var, without inspecting the source. What if they forget to initialize the global var? It's easy to forget. What if you have two sets of code both trying to use a library that relies on these global vars? They are probably going to step all over each other, unless you use binding. You also add overheads every time you access data from a ref.
If you write your code side-effect free, these problems go away. A function stands on its own. It's easy to test: pass it some inputs, inspect the outputs, they'll always be the same. It's easy to see what inputs a function depends on: they're all in the argument list. And now your code is thread-safe. And probably runs faster.
It's tricky to think about code this way if you're used to the "mutate a bunch of objects/memory" style of programming, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes relatively straightforward to organize your programs this way. Your code generally ends up as simple as or simpler than the global-mutation version of the same code.
Here's a highly contrived example:
(def *address-book* (ref {}))
(defn add [name addr]
(dosync (alter *address-book* assoc name addr)))
(defn report []
(doseq [[name addr] #*address-book*]
(println name ":" addr)))
(defn do-some-stuff []
(add "Brian" "123 Bovine University Blvd.")
(add "Roger" "456 Main St.")
(report))
Looking at do-some-stuff in isolation, what the heck is it doing? There are a lot of things happening implicitly. Down this path lies spaghetti. An arguably better version:
(defn make-address-book [] {})
(defn add [addr-book name addr]
(assoc addr-book name addr))
(defn report [addr-book]
(doseq [[name addr] addr-book]
(println name ":" addr)))
(defn do-some-stuff []
(let [addr-book (make-address-book)]
(-> addr-book
(add "Brian" "123 Bovine University Blvd.")
(add "Roger" "456 Main St.")
(report))))
Now it's clear what do-some-stuff is doing, even in isolation. You can have as many address books floating around as you want. Multiple threads could have their own. You can use this code from multiple namespaces safely. You can't forget to initialize the address book, because you pass it as an argument. You can test report easily: just pass the desired "mock" address book in and see what it prints. You don't have to care about any global state or anything but the function you're testing at the moment.
If you don't need to coordinate updates to a data structure from multiple threads, there's usually no need to use refs or global vars.
I am having a hard time writing type checks in Clojure. Pleas help me.
How do I write/perform 'char?' in Clojure?
How do I write/perform 'atom?' in Clojure?
How do I know what type an item is in Clojure?
Can I write (type? an-item)?
user> (instance? Character \c)
true
Character here is java.lang.Character.
The traditional definition of atom?, I think, is "nil, or anything that's not a pair", but this makes no sense in Clojure because Clojure doesn't use cons cells for everything under the sun. We also have vectors and hashmaps and sets etc. One possibility in Clojure is:
(defn atom? [x] (not (coll? x)))
Typically type questions in Clojure come down to asking "what class is this, or what primitive-wrapper-class can contain it." This comes from Clojure's first class treatment of java. Clojure uses java classes instead of introducing its own type system that would require lots or wrappers to convert back and forth from java.
(= Character (class \a))
(symbol? 'asdf) ; not quite what you want but close. seehttp://clojure.org/reader
(= String (class "asdf"))