I would like to transform the following sequence:
(def boollist [true false false false true false true])
Into the following:
[[true] [false false false true] [false true]]
My code leads to a Stackoverflow:
(defn sep [boollst]
(loop [lst boollst
separated [[]]
[left right] (take 2 lst)]
(if (nil? left) separated)
(recur (next lst)
(if (false? left)
(conj (last separated) left)
(conj separated [left]))
(take 2 (next lst)))))
Is there an elegant way of transforming this?
There's probably a much more elegant way, but this is what I came up with:
(defn f
([xs] (f xs [] []))
([[x & xs :as all] acc a]
(if (seq all)
(if x
(recur xs [] (conj a (conj acc x)))
(recur xs (conj acc x) a))
a)))
It just traverses the sequence keeping track of the current vector of falses, and a big accumulator of everything so far.
A short, "clever" solution would be:
(defn sep [lst]
(let [x (partition-by identity lst)]
(filter last (map concat (cons [] x) x))))
The "stack overflow" issue is due to the philosophy of Clojure regarding recursion and is easily avoided if approached correctly. You should always implement these types of functions* in a lazy way: If you can't find a trick for solving the problem using library functions, as I did above, you should use "lazy-seq" for the general solution (like pmjordan did) as explained here: http://clojure.org/lazy
* Functions that eat up a list and return a list as the result. (If something other than a list is returned, the idiomatic solution is to use "recur" and an accumulator, as shown by dfan's example, which I would not consider idiomatic in this case.)
Here's a version that uses lazy evaluation and is maybe a little more readable:
(defn f [bools]
(when-not (empty? bools)
(let
[[l & r] bools
[lr rr] (split-with false? r)]
(lazy-seq (cons
(cons l lr)
(f rr))))))
It doesn't return vectors though, so if that's a requirement you need to manually pass the result of concat and of the function itself to vec, thus negating the advantage of using lazy evaluation.
The stack overflow error is because your recur is outside of the if. You evaluate the if form for side effects, then unconditionally recur. (feel free to edit for format, I'm not at a real keyboard).
Related
I am coming from a Java background trying to learn Clojure. As the best way of learning is by actually writing some code, I took a very simple example of finding even numbers in a vector. Below is the piece of code I wrote:
`
(defn even-vector-2 [input]
(def output [])
(loop [x input]
(if (not= (count x) 0)
(do
(if (= (mod (first x) 2) 0)
(do
(def output (conj output (first x)))))
(recur (rest x)))))
output)
`
This code works, but it is lame that I had to use a global symbol to make it work. The reason I had to use the global symbol is because I wanted to change the state of the symbol every time I find an even number in the vector. let doesn't allow me to change the value of the symbol. Is there a way this can be achieved without using global symbols / atoms.
The idiomatic solution is straightfoward:
(filter even? [1 2 3])
; -> (2)
For your educational purposes an implementation with loop/recur
(defn filter-even [v]
(loop [r []
[x & xs :as v] v]
(if (seq v) ;; if current v is not empty
(if (even? x)
(recur (conj r x) xs) ;; bind r to r with x, bind v to rest
(recur r xs)) ;; leave r as is
r))) ;; terminate by not calling recur, return r
The main problem with your code is you're polluting the namespace by using def. You should never really use def inside a function. If you absolutely need mutability, use an atom or similar object.
Now, for your question. If you want to do this the "hard way", just make output a part of the loop:
(defn even-vector-3 [input]
(loop [[n & rest-input] input ; Deconstruct the head from the tail
output []] ; Output is just looped with the input
(if n ; n will be nil if the list is empty
(recur rest-input
(if (= (mod n 2) 0)
(conj output n)
output)) ; Adding nothing since the number is odd
output)))
Rarely is explicit looping necessary though. This is a typical case for a fold: you want to accumulate a list that's a variable-length version of another list. This is a quick version:
(defn even-vector-4 [input]
(reduce ; Reducing the input into another list
(fn [acc n]
(if (= (rem n 2) 0)
(conj acc n)
acc))
[] ; This is the initial accumulator.
input))
Really though, you're just filtering a list. Just use the core's filter:
(filter #(= (rem % 2) 0) [1 2 3 4])
Note, filter is lazy.
Try
#(filterv even? %)
if you want to return a vector or
#(filter even? %)
if you want a lazy sequence.
If you want to combine this with more transformations, you might want to go for a transducer:
(filter even?)
If you wanted to write it using loop/recur, I'd do it like this:
(defn keep-even
"Accepts a vector of numbers, returning a vector of the even ones."
[input]
(loop [result []
unused input]
(if (empty? unused)
result
(let [curr-value (first unused)
next-result (if (is-even? curr-value)
(conj result curr-value)
result)
next-unused (rest unused) ]
(recur next-result next-unused)))))
This gets the same result as the built-in filter function.
Take a look at filter, even? and vec
check out http://cljs.info/cheatsheet/
(defn even-vector-2 [input](vec(filter even? input)))
If you want a lazy solution, filter is your friend.
Here is a non-lazy simple solution (loop/recur can be avoided if you apply always the same function without precise work) :
(defn keep-even-numbers
[coll]
(reduce
(fn [agg nb]
(if (zero? (rem nb 2)) (conj agg nb) agg))
[] coll))
If you like mutability for "fun", here is a solution with temporary mutable collection :
(defn mkeep-even-numbers
[coll]
(persistent!
(reduce
(fn [agg nb]
(if (zero? (rem nb 2)) (conj! agg nb) agg))
(transient []) coll)))
...which is slightly faster !
mod would be better than rem if you extend the odd/even definition to negative integers
You can also replace [] by the collection you want, here a vector !
In Clojure, you generally don't need to write a low-level loop with loop/recur. Here is a quick demo.
(ns tst.clj.core
(:require
[tupelo.core :as t] ))
(t/refer-tupelo)
(defn is-even?
"Returns true if x is even, otherwise false."
[x]
(zero? (mod x 2)))
; quick sanity checks
(spyx (is-even? 2))
(spyx (is-even? 3))
(defn keep-even
"Accepts a vector of numbers, returning a vector of the even ones."
[input]
(into [] ; forces result into vector, eagerly
(filter is-even? input)))
; demonstrate on [0 1 2...9]
(spyx (keep-even (range 10)))
with result:
(is-even? 2) => true
(is-even? 3) => false
(keep-even (range 10)) => [0 2 4 6 8]
Your project.clj needs the following for spyx to work:
:dependencies [
[tupelo "0.9.11"]
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am just starting out in my clojure journey and I wonder if anybody can point out my beginners mistakes in my function below that simply reverses a list. I know that there is already a reverse function so this is purely for learning.
(defn rev
([l]
(if (= (count l) 1) l (rev '() l)))
([l orig]
(if (= (count orig) 0)
l
(rev (conj l (first orig)) (rest orig)))))
In my defence, it does work but what I am finding myself doing a lot in clojure is overloading the arguments list to take into account when I need a working list like in this example where I conj new items onto.
First, it's a really good idea to look at the existing implementation of reverse function first:
(defn reverse [coll]
(reduce conj () coll))
The main difference from your code is that existing implementation of reverse uses higher-order function reduce. It's a good practice to use higher-order functions instead of recursion wherever possible.
--
But let's assume that your goal is to learn recursion. Here is how I would've written it:
(defn rev
([coll]
(rev coll ()))
([coll acc]
(if-let [[h & ts] (seq coll)]
(recur ts (conj acc h))
acc)))
Let's have a closer look at my code.
First, I'm using if-let and seq to check that coll is a non-empty collection.
Then I'm using destructuring to get the first element of the given collection and the rest of it.
In other words, my construction
(if-let [[h & ts] (seq coll)]
(recur ts (conj acc h))
acc)
could be rewritten with if, let, first and rest:
(if-not (empty? coll)
(let [h (first coll)
ts (rest coll)]
(recur ts (conj acc h)))
acc)
which is almost what you wrote yourself.
The last important thing is that I'm using recur instead of calling rev directly.
It allow clojure compiler to perform tail recursion optimization.
You should also consider using loop instead of creating an overloaded function, unless you want to make two-arguments form public:
(defn rev [coll]
(loop [coll coll
acc ()]
(if-let [[h & ts] (seq coll)]
(recur ts (conj acc h))
acc)))
--
So, there is a lot of things to improve in your code. But I can see only three real mistakes there:
you should use recur;
there is no point in checking (= (count l) 1);
you should use empty? instead of (= (count orig) 0).
Here I fixed these two mistakes in your code:
(defn rev
([l]
(rev '() l))
([l orig]
(if (empty? orig)
l
(recur (conj l (first orig)) (rest orig)))))
If you don't want to expose the function with other arities, define and employ them locally:
(defn rev [l]
((fn rev2 [l orig]
(if (empty? orig)
l
(rev2 (conj (first orig) l) (rest orig))))
() l))
You may find it easier to use let or letfn:
(defn rev [l]
(letfn [(rev2 [l orig]
(if (empty? orig)
l
(rev2 (conj l (first orig)) (rest orig))))]
(rev2 () l)))
And, by the way, ...
Don't count the sequence if you just want to know whether there is
anything in it. Use seq or empty?.
Get rid of the special case of 1 element sequences: it isn't special.
() doesn't need quoting.
And, of course, we can and ought to use recur instead of the recursive call to rev2, to avoid blowing the stack on long sequences:
(defn rev [l]
(letfn [(rev2 [l orig]
(if (empty? orig)
l
(recur (conj l (first orig)) (rest orig))))]
(rev2 () l)))
I'm working on 4clojure problems and a similar issue keeps coming up. I'll write a solution that works for all but one of the test cases. It's usually the one that is checking for lazy evaluation. The solution below works for all but the last test case. I've tried all kinds of solutions and can't seem to get it to stop evaluating until integer overflow. I read the chapter on lazy sequences in Joy of Clojure, but I'm having a hard time implementing them. Is there a rule of thumb I'm forgetting, like don't use loop or something like that?
; This version is non working at the moment, will try to edit a version that works
(defn i-between [p k coll]
(loop [v [] coll coll]
(let [i (first coll) coll (rest coll) n (first coll)]
(cond (and i n)
(let [ret (if (p i n) (cons k (cons i v)) (cons i v))]
(recur ret coll))
i
(cons i v )
:else v))))
Problem 132
Ultimate solution for those curious:
(fn i-between [p k coll]
(letfn [(looper [coll]
(if (empty? coll) coll
(let [[h s & xs] coll
c (cond (and h s (p h s))
(list h k )
(and h s)
(list h )
:else (list h))]
(lazy-cat c (looper (rest coll))))
))] (looper coll)))
When I think about lazy sequences, what usually works is thinking about incremental cons'ing
That is, each recursion step only adds a single element to the list, and of course you never use loop.
So what you have is something like this:
(cons (generate first) (recur rest))
When wrapped on lazy-seq, only the needed elements from the sequence are realized, for instance.
(take 5 (some-lazy-fn))
Would only do 5 recursion calls to realize the needed elements.
A tentative, far from perfect solution to the 4clojure problem, that demonstrates the idea:
(fn intercalate
[pred value col]
(letfn [(looper [s head]
(lazy-seq
(if-let [sec (first s)]
(if (pred head sec)
(cons head (cons value (looper (rest s) sec)))
(cons head (looper (rest s) sec)))
(if head [head] []))))]
(looper (rest col) (first col))))
There, the local recursive function is looper, for each element tests if the predicate is true, in that case realizes two elements(adds the interleaved one), otherwise realize just one.
Also, you can avoid recursion using higher order functions
(fn [p v xs]
(mapcat
#(if (p %1 %2) [%1 v] [%1])
xs
(lazy-cat (rest xs) (take 1 xs))))
But as #noisesmith said in the comment, you're just calling a function that calls lazy-seq.
I've been working through problems on 4Clojure today, and I ran into trouble on Problem 28, implementing flatten.
There are a couple of definite problems with my code.
(fn [coll]
((fn flt [coll res]
(if (empty? coll)
res
(if (seq? (first coll))
(flt (into (first coll) (rest coll)) res)
(flt (rest coll) (cons (first coll) res))))) coll (empty coll)))
I could use some pointers on how to think about a couple of problems.
How do I make sure I'm not changing the order of the resulting list? cons and conj both add elements wherever it is most efficient to add elements (at the beginning for lists, at the end for vectors, etc), so I don't see how I'm supposed to have any control over this when working with a generic sequence.
How do I handle nested sequences of different types? For instance, an input of '(1 2 [3 4]) will will output ([3 4] 2 1), while an input of [1 2 '(3 4)] will output (4 3 2 1)
Am I even approaching this from the 'right' angle? Should I use a recursive inner function with an accumulator to do this, or am I missing something obvious?
You should try to use HOF (higher order functions) as much as possible: it communicates your intent more clearly and it spares you from introducing subtle low-level bugs.
(defn flatten [coll]
(if (sequential? coll)
(mapcat flatten coll)
(list coll)))
Regarding your questions about lists and vectors. As you might see in tests, output is list. Just make correct abstraction. Fortunately, clojure already has one, called sequence.
All you need is first, rest and some recursive solution.
One possible approach:
(defn flatten [[f & r]]
(if (nil? f)
'()
(if (sequential? f)
(concat (flatten f) (flatten r))
(cons f (flatten r)))))
Here's how to do it in a tail call optimised way, within a single iteration, and using the least amount of Clojure.core code as I could:
#(loop [s % o [] r % l 0]
(cond
(and (empty? s) (= 0 l))
o
(empty? s)
(recur r
o
r
(dec l))
(sequential? (first s))
(recur (first s)
o
(if (= 0 l)
(rest s)
r)
(inc l))
:else
(recur (rest s)
(conj o (first s))
r
l)))
I'm learning Clojure, and I'm trying to solve the Problem 31: Write a function which packs consecutive duplicates into sub-lists.
(= (__ [1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3]) '((1 1) (2) (1 1 1) (3 3)))
I know I can solve this using identity, and in a functional way, but I want to solve it using recursion, because I've not well established this idea in my brain.
My solution would be this:
(defn packing [lista]
(loop [[fst snd :as all] lista mem [] tmp '(fst)]
(print "all is " all "\n\n") ;; something is wrong; it always is an empty list
(if (seq? all)
(if (= fst snd)
(recur (rest all) mem (cons snd tmp))
(recur (rest all) (conj mem tmp) (list snd)))
(seq mem))))
My idea is a recursive loop always taking the first 2 items and comparing. If they are the same number, I include this inside a temporary list tmp; if they're different, I include my temporary list inside men. (This is my final list; a better name would be final_list.)
Because it compares the first 2 items, but at the same time it needs a recursive loop only bypassing the first item, I named the entire list all.
I don't know if the logic is good but inclusive if this was wrong I'm not sure why when I print.
(print "all is " all "\n\n") I receive an empty list
A few points:
'(fst) creates a list containing a symbol fst, not the value of fst, this is one of the reasons to prefer using vectors, e.g., [fst]
you should avoid assuming the input will not be empty
you can use conj for both lists and vectors
destructuring is nestable
(defn packing [coll]
(loop [[x & [y :as more] :as all] coll
result []
same '()]
(if all
(if (= x y)
(recur more result (conj same x))
(recur more (conj result (conj same x)) '()))
result)))
in your code all isn't empty..only happen than is an infinite loop and you always see a empty list...in the firsts lines you can see than it works like expected..
the mistake is in (seq? all) because a empty list is a seq too... try (seq? '()) and return true...then you do a empty loop
you need change this for (empty? all) your code would be
other mistake is '(fst) because it return the simbol fst and not the value...change it for (list fst)
(defn badpacking [lista]
(loop [[fst snd :as all] lista mem [] tmp (list fst)]
(if (empty? all)
(seq mem)
(if (= fst snd)
(recur (rest all) mem (cons snd tmp))
(recur (rest all) (conj mem tmp) (list snd))))))