Hey, the exercise was to rewrite it with higher order functions, not to make it clearer !
2009/12/16 Meikel Brandmeyer <m...@kotka.de> > Hi, > > On Dec 15, 10:28 pm, DTH <dth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Damn, well played sir; that's much cleaner. > > Someone, please enlighten me! > > Why is this clearer? > > (defn foo > [a] > (let [b f1 > c (comp f2 b) > d (comp f3 c) > e (comp f4 d) > g (comp f5 c) > h (comp f5 f2 e)] > (->> (iterate #(f7 (d %) (b %)) a) > (filter #(or (f6? (b %)) (<= (g %) (h %)))) > first > e))) > > It is more verbose than the loop. It generates 7 additional classes. > Per iteration step it calls b 5 times and c 3 times. Depending on b > and c maybe memoize should be considered, too. Why the first of the > resulting sequence, not the second? (<- The point here is: In which > way is defining a seq of uninteresting values to obtain a single one > cleaner than a loop which just returns that desired value? Maybe this > is really a fixpoint iteration?) > > Sincerely > Meikel > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
