Re: update-in oddness
On Jun 4, 7:37 am, Heinz N. Gies he...@licenser.net wrote:
Update-in behaves oddly when getting an empty path. (update-in [] {1 2}
(constantly {2 3})) returns {nil {2 3} 1 2} not {2 3} as I'd expect. get-in
works well with empty pathes so I think this isn't a good behavior.
I don't know why you expect that to do anything - first of all, the
second argument to update-in should be a seq of keys. In any case, it
throws
nth not supported on this type: PersistentArrayMap
[Thrown class java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException]
--
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
Re: update-in oddness
On Jun 4, 2010, at 11:15 , Joost wrote:
On Jun 4, 7:37 am, Heinz N. Gies he...@licenser.net wrote:
Update-in behaves oddly when getting an empty path. (update-in [] {1 2}
(constantly {2 3})) returns {nil {2 3} 1 2} not {2 3} as I'd expect. get-in
works well with empty pathes so I think this isn't a good behavior.
I don't know why you expect that to do anything - first of all, the
second argument to update-in should be a seq of keys. In any case, it
throws
nth not supported on this type: PersistentArrayMap
[Thrown class java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException]
Sorry I mixed arguments, it should be (update-in {1 2} [] (constantly {2 3}))
--
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
Re: update-in oddness
On Jun 4, 1:42 pm, Heinz N. Gies he...@licenser.net wrote:
Sorry I mixed arguments, it should be (update-in {1 2} [] (constantly {2 3}))
Yes, that gives {nil {2 3}, 1 2}
You're not giving any key in the key list, so that is the reason
there's a nil key now, and {2 3} is just the value that you give it,
since that's what ((constantly {2 3}) nil) returns.
Seems correct as far as the documentation of update-in is concerned.
Joost.
--
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
Re: update-in oddness
On Jun 4, 2:03 pm, Joost jo...@zeekat.nl wrote: Seems correct as far as the documentation of update-in is concerned. Addendum: though I think you've got a point in that inserting a nil key is unexpected. Personally, I don't really know what to expect from that expression. Joost. -- 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
Re: update-in oddness
On Jun 4, 2010, at 14:03 , Joost wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:42 pm, Heinz N. Gies he...@licenser.net wrote:
Sorry I mixed arguments, it should be (update-in {1 2} [] (constantly {2 3}))
Yes, that gives {nil {2 3}, 1 2}
You're not giving any key in the key list, so that is the reason
there's a nil key now, and {2 3} is just the value that you give it,
since that's what ((constantly {2 3}) nil) returns.
Seems correct as far as the documentation of update-in is concerned.
I'd expect that a empty key works on the entire map, just as get-in with en
empty key returns the entire map, this is kind of very important if you work
with automatically with keys since otherwise you always have to handle the
special case []. This is very annoying :(
here an example:
(if-let [r (butlast @path)]
(do
(alter m update-in r dissoc (last @path))
(alter m update-in r assoc {:name @sr} c))
(do
(alter m dissoc (last @path))
(alter m assoc {:name @sr} c)))
--
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
Re: update-in oddness
On Jun 4, 2010, at 14:11 , Heinz N. Gies wrote:
On Jun 4, 2010, at 14:03 , Joost wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:42 pm, Heinz N. Gies he...@licenser.net wrote:
Sorry I mixed arguments, it should be (update-in {1 2} [] (constantly {2
3}))
Yes, that gives {nil {2 3}, 1 2}
You're not giving any key in the key list, so that is the reason
there's a nil key now, and {2 3} is just the value that you give it,
since that's what ((constantly {2 3}) nil) returns.
Seems correct as far as the documentation of update-in is concerned.
So for how I'd expect it to work:
(defn update-in*
([m [k ks] f args]
(if ks
(assoc m k (apply update-in* (get m k) ks f args))
(if k
(assoc m k (apply f (get m k) args))
(apply f m args)
user (get-in {1 2} [])
{1 2}
user (update-in* {1 2} [] assoc 1 3)
{1 3}
In opposite of how it works:
user (update-in {1 2} [] assoc 1 3)
{nil {1 3}, 1 2}
--
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
Re: update-in oddness
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Heinz N. Gies he...@licenser.net wrote:
On Jun 4, 2010, at 14:11 , Heinz N. Gies wrote:
On Jun 4, 2010, at 14:03 , Joost wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:42 pm, Heinz N. Gies he...@licenser.net wrote:
Sorry I mixed arguments, it should be (update-in {1 2} [] (constantly {2
3}))
Yes, that gives {nil {2 3}, 1 2}
You're not giving any key in the key list, so that is the reason
there's a nil key now, and {2 3} is just the value that you give it,
since that's what ((constantly {2 3}) nil) returns.
Seems correct as far as the documentation of update-in is concerned.
So for how I'd expect it to work:
(defn update-in*
([m [k ks] f args]
(if ks
(assoc m k (apply update-in* (get m k) ks f args))
(if k
(assoc m k (apply f (get m k) args))
(apply f m args)
user (get-in {1 2} [])
{1 2}
user (update-in* {1 2} [] assoc 1 3)
{1 3}
I agree with the spirit of your argument, but not your
implementation:
(update-in* {nil 2} [nil] (constantly 3))
;= 3
Perhaps:
(defn update-in*
[m ks f args]
(if-let [[k mk] ks]
(if mk
(assoc m k (apply update-in* (get m k) mk f args))
(assoc m k (apply f (get m k) args)))
(apply f m args)))
(update-in* {nil 2} [nil] (constantly 3))
;= {nil 3}
--Chouser
http://joyofclojure.com/
--
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
Re: update-in oddness
On Jun 4, 2010, at 16:23 , Chouser wrote:
I agree with the spirit of your argument, but not your
implementation:
(update-in* {nil 2} [nil] (constantly 3))
;= 3
As so often Chouser, you are of cause totally right :). I just realized the
flaw when I was about to open a ticket but you were faster ;) well this are
good news so since I don't have a CA signed yet (actually I do just not send it
:P) so one could use your code as a fix.
Regards,
Heinz
--
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
update-in oddness
Update-in behaves oddly when getting an empty path. (update-in [] {1 2}
(constantly {2 3})) returns {nil {2 3} 1 2} not {2 3} as I'd expect. get-in
works well with empty pathes so I think this isn't a good behavior.
Regards,
Heinz
--
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
