I have an array of tuples, where each tuple is a 2 tuple with a key and a value. What would be the cleanest way to convert this array of tuples into a hash-map?
user=> (into {} [[:a 1] [:b 2]])
{:a 1, :b 2}
A map is a sequence of MapEntry elements. Each MapEntry is a vector of a key and value. The tuples in the question are already in the form of a MapEntry, which makes things convenient. (That's also why the into solution is a good one.)
user=> (reduce conj {} [[:a 1] [:b 2]])
{:b 2, :a 1}
Assuming that "tupel" means "two-elememt array":
(reduce
(fn [m tupel]
(assoc m
(aget tupel 0)
(aget tupel 1)))
{}
array-of-tupels)
user=> (def a [[:a 4] [:b 6]])
user=> (apply hash-map (flatten a))
{:a 4, :b 6}
Related
This makes sense:
user=> (into {} [[:a 1] [:b 2]])
{:a 1, :b 2}
But why does this generate an error?
user=> (into {} (partition 2 [:a 1 :b 2]))
ClassCastException clojure.lang.Keyword cannot be cast to java.util.Map$Entry clojure.lang.ATransientMap.conj (ATransientMap.java:44)
Just to be sure:
user=> (partition 2 [:a 1 :b 2])
((:a 1) (:b 2))
Does into have a problem with lazy sequences? If so, why?
Beyond an explanation of why this doesn't work, what is the recommended way to conj a sequence of key-value pairs like [:a 1 :b 2] into a map? (apply conj doesn't seem to work, either.)
You can apply the sequence to assoc:
(apply assoc {:foo 1} [:a 1 :b 2])
=> {:foo 1, :a 1, :b 2}
Does into have a problem with lazy sequences? If so, why?
No, into is commonly used with lazily evaluated sequences. This is lazy, but each key/value tuple is a vector, which is why it works when into is reducing the pairs into the map:
(into {} (map vector (range 3) (repeat :x)))
=> {0 :x, 1 :x, 2 :x}
This doesn't work because the key/value pairs are lists:
(into {} (map list (range 3) (repeat :x)))
So the difference isn't laziness; it's due to into using reduce using conj on the map, which only works with vector key/value pairs (or MapEntrys):
(conj {} [:a 1]) ;; ok
(conj {} (MapEntry. :a 1)) ;; ok
(conj {} '(:a 1)) ;; not ok
Update: assoc wrapper for applying empty/nil sequences as suggested in comments:
(defn assoc*
([m] m)
([m k v & kvs]
(apply assoc m k v kvs)))
The recommended way – (assuming the seq arg is non-empty, as pointed out by the OP) – would be
Clojure 1.9.0
user=> (apply assoc {} [:a 1 :b 2])
{:a 1, :b 2}
The version with partition doesn't work because the blocks that partition returns are seqs and those are not treated as map entries when conj'd on to a map the way vectors and actual map entries are.
E.g. (into {} (map vec) (partition 2 [:a 1 :b 2])) would work because here the pairs get converted to vectors before conjing.
Still the approach with assoc is preferable unless there's some particular circumstance that makes into convenient (like, say, if you have a bunch of transducers that you want to use for preprocessing your partition-generated pairs etc.).
Clojure treats a 2-vec such as [:a 1] as equivalent to a MapEntry, doing what amounts to "automatic type conversion". I try to avoid this and always be explicit.
(first {:a 1}) => <#clojure.lang.MapEntry [:a 1]>
(conj {:a 1} [:b 2]) => <#clojure.lang.PersistentArrayMap {:a 1, :b 2}>
So we see that a MapEntry prints like a vector but has a different type (just like a Clojure seq prints like a list but has a different type). seq converts a Clojure map into a sequence of MapEntry's, and first gets us the first one (most Clojure functions call (seq ...) on any input collections before any other processing).
Notice that conj does the inverse type conversion, treating the vector [:b 2] as if it were a MapEntry. However, conj won't perform automatic type conversion for a list or a seq:
(throws? (conj {:a 1} '(:b 2)))
(throws? (into {:a 1} '(:b 2)))
into has the same problem since it is basically just (reduce conj <1st-arg> <2nd-seq>).
The other answers already have 3 ways that work:
(assoc {} :b 2) => {:b 2}
(conj {} [:b 2]) => {:b 2}
(into {} [[:a 1] [:b 2]]) => {:a 1, :b 2}
However, I would avoid those and stick to either hash-map or sorted-map, both of which avoid the problem of empty input seqs:
(apply hash-map []) => {} ; works for empty input seq
(apply hash-map [:a 1 :b 2]) => {:b 2, :a 1}
If your input sequence is a list of pairs, flatten is sometimes helpful:
(apply sorted-map (flatten [[:a 1] [:b 2]])) => {:a 1, :b 2}
(apply hash-map (flatten '((:a 1) (:b 2)))) => {:a 1, :b 2}
P.S.
Please be note that these are not the same:
java.util.Map$Entry (listed in jdk docs as "Map.Entry")
clojure.lang.MapEntry
P.P.S
If you already have a map and want to merge in a (possibly empty) sequence of key-value pairs, just use a combination of into and hash-map:
(into {:a 1} (apply hash-map [])) => {:a 1}
(into {:a 1} (apply hash-map [:b 2])) => {:a 1, :b 2}
I have an vector and a map. And want to replace the vector element if it is an map key (replace the key with value)
user=> (def v [:a :b :c :d])
#'user/v
user=> (def m {:a :k, :c :q} )
#'user/m
user=> (reduce (fn[x y] (conj x (if (y m) (y m) y))) [] v)
[:k :b :q :d]
Is there any better way to do it?
Since your input and output are collections of the same length and the collection items are calculated independently, it would be simpler and more idiomatic to use map, or mapv for vector output.
(mapv (fn [x] (m x x))
v)
or simply
(mapv #(m % %) v)
Note that (m x x) is similar to (if (contains? m x) (m x) x).
replace does exactly what you want :
user> (replace {:a :x :b :y} [:a :b :c :d :e :f])
[:x :y :c :d :e :f]
Note it works with vectors as an associative collection where keys are indices :
user> (replace [:a :b :c :d] [0 2 4 3 2 1])
[:a :c 4 :d :c :b]
The following code:
(into {} [[:a 1][:b 2][:c 3][:d 4][:e 5]])
...produces a map(?) of keyword / value pairs. I don't quite understand the significance of the double square brackets and I am assuming it is an example of destructuring?
Thanks,
~Caitlin
It's not a destructuring, it's just an example of using into core function.
into is a function used to conjoin two collection by repeatedly adding elements from the second collection to the first one with conj function.
So, (into {} [[:a 1][:b 2]]) is just a synonym for
(-> {} (conj [:a 1]) (conj [:b 2]))
This answer is a supplement to Leonid's. One can think of a Clojure map as a collection of "map entries", key/value pairs. These are sometimes printed so that they look like 2-element vectors, though they are not 2-element vectors. Nevertheless, if you want to convert something into a map using into, it makes sense that you should pass the data that will turn into map entries in the form of 2-element vectors.
=> (def foo {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3})
#'/foo
=> (find foo :b)
[:b 2]
=> (class (find foo :b))
clojure.lang.MapEntry
=> (map identity foo)
([:c 3] [:b 2] [:a 1])
=> (map class (map identity foo))
(clojure.lang.MapEntry clojure.lang.MapEntry clojure.lang.MapEntry)
=> (list [:c 3] [:b 2] [:a 1])
([:c 3] [:b 2] [:a 1])
=> (map class (list [:c 3] [:b 2] [:a 1]))
(clojure.lang.PersistentVector clojure.lang.PersistentVector clojure.lang.PersistentVector)
What is the idiomatic way of conj-ing a list of values to a map value?
This is the result I want, but the anonymous function looks kind of ugly imo. Is there a better way?
> (update-in {:x #{}} [:x] #(apply conj % '(1 2)))
{:x #{1 2}}
The anonymous function is unnecessary
(update-in {:x #{}} [:x] conj 1 2)
;=> {:x #{1 2}}
(update-in {:x #{}} [:x] into [1 2])
;=> {:x #{1 2}}
You should not have to know whether the map contains? the key that you are conjing values to. Adapting your example ...
(update-in {} [:x] #(apply conj % '(1 2)))
;{:x (2 1)}
... not what you want.
The following
(defn assocs [m k coll]
(assoc m k (into (get m k #{}) coll)))
... supplies an empty-set value if no entry for the key exists.
(assocs {} :x [1 2])
;{:x #{1 2}}
(assocs {:x #{2}} :x [1 2])
;{:x #{1 2}}
You'll find similar code in clojure.algo.graph, for example here. (Warning: the graph type only functions in one of the algorithms and otherwise just gets in the way.)
I am wrapping my head around state in Clojure. I come from languages where state can be mutated. For example, in Python, I can create a dictionary, put some string => integer pairs inside, and then walk over the dictionary and increment the values.
How would I do this in idiomatic Clojure?
(def my-map {:a 1 :b 2})
(zipmap (keys my-map) (map inc (vals my-map)))
;;=> {:b 3, :a 2}
To update only one value by key:
(update-in my-map [:b] inc) ;;=> {:a 1, :b 3}
Since Clojure 1.7 it's also possible to use update:
(update my-map :b inc)
Just produce a new map and use it:
(def m {:a 3 :b 4})
(apply merge
(map (fn [[k v]] {k (inc v) }) m))
; {:b 5, :a 4}
To update multiple values, you could also take advantage of reduce taking an already filled accumulator, and applying a function on that and every member of the following collection.
=> (reduce (fn [a k] (update-in a k inc)) {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3 :d 4} [[:a] [:c]])
{:a 2, :c 4, :b 2, :d 4}
Be aware of the keys needing to be enclosed in vectors, but you can still do multiple update-ins in nested structures like the original update in.
If you made it a generalized function, you could automatically wrap a vector over a key by testing it with coll?:
(defn multi-update-in
[m v f & args]
(reduce
(fn [acc p] (apply
(partial update-in acc (if (coll? p) p (vector p)) f)
args)) m v))
which would allow for single-level/key updates without the need for wrapping the keys in vectors
=> (multi-update-in {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3 :d 4} [:a :c] inc)
{:a 2, :c 4, :b 2, :d 4}
but still be able to do nested updates
(def people
{"keith" {:age 27 :hobby "needlefelting"}
"penelope" {:age 39 :hobby "thaiboxing"}
"brian" {:age 12 :hobby "rocket science"}})
=> (multi-update-in people [["keith" :age] ["brian" :age]] inc)
{"keith" {:age 28, :hobby "needlefelting"},
"penelope" {:age 39, :hobby "thaiboxing"},
"brian" {:age 13, :hobby "rocket science"}}
To slightly improve #Michiel Brokent's answer. This will work if the key already doesn't present.
(update my-map :a #(if (nil? %) 1 (inc %)))
I've been toying with the same idea, so I came up with:
(defn remap
"returns a function which takes a map as argument
and applies f to each value in the map"
[f]
#(into {} (map (fn [[k v]] [k (f v)]) %)))
((remap inc) {:foo 1})
;=> {:foo 2}
or
(def inc-vals (remap inc))
(inc-vals {:foo 1})
;=> {:foo 2}