On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:59 PM, wrote:
> Instead I decided to experiment a Leiningen plug in, sauberjar to create the
> target only with the class files and only the ones for which there is a
> corresponding source file in the source folder. To start this asap, I cloned
> the
> existing jar tas
(defn insert [v at el]
(flatten (assoc v at [el (v at)]))
You get a lazy seq back, so further operations are probably not as
performant as they should be. But that would be as performant as a
regular assoc for just that one operation. What you do from then
on.
Mark
On Aug 26, 10:33 am, C
I read the ticket on Assembla and found it risky to try to implement the
patch.
Instead I decided to experiment a Leiningen plug in, sauberjar to create the
target only with the class files and only the ones for which there is a
corresponding source file in the source folder. To start this asap,
Thank you Stuart. All the years of thinking about functions as being
subservient to objects has warped my brain. I believe I've read about
this inversion for protocols before but I don't think I've really
grasped all the consequences of it until now.
What I'm taking away from this is that it is pr
On Aug 26, 8:37 am, John Fingerhut wrote:
> I have now submitted small modifications that permit AOT compilation. The
> compile time was small -- on the order of 1 to 2 sec of the total CPU time,
> which is often a small percentage of the long runs that are reported on the
> shootout web site.
Redefining Foo gives you a new implementation of bar, which, like any protocol
method, will fail for all inputs until a type has been extended to it.
> I ran your sequence without redefining Foo and got 20 instead of 1/5.
> I don't know how that redefinition affects the evaluation of bar.
>
> Cl
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1636515
Or Direct link:
http://asymmetrical-view.com/2010/08/26/how-were-deploying-our-clojure-applications.html
I thought others might find reading this valuable, I'm sure there are other
ways to do this, it's working for me for now.
Regards,
Kyle
--
The problem here is that you are presuming that a protocol function "bar" is a
behavior of the types it is extended to. Invert that: "bar" is its own
function, and the types come to it, not the other way around. If you explicitly
replace "bar" with a new function (which redeclaring the protocol
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Chouser wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Jon Seltzer
>> wrote:
>> > I know what assoc does:
>> >
>> > user=> (assoc [\a \b \c] 0 \d) ;please extend to much larger vector
>> > with index somewhe
Its for defining look variables (constants) that you use more then
once in your form and not have to write it more then once (or
calculated it more then once)
(let [r1 (random-int)
r2 (random-int)]
(when (the-same? r1 r2)
(str r1 " and " r2 " are the same"))
Write
> I may have misunderstood what I've read about protocols, so please set
> me straight if the following is wrong -
>
> On Aug 25, 11:08 pm, Stuart Halloway
> wrote:
>> I think the current behavior follows the principle of least surprise:
>>
>> (1) bar is a function, in whatever namespace the pro
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what's happening is that
when you call (defprotocol Foo ...) for the second time, you're
setting the symbol Foo to point to the new protocol, while the
original fooed still has the old protocol. It also binds bar to a
completely new function, which has
My understanding is that old (previously constructed) instances of a
record follow the old implementation. To get the new behavior after
recompiling a record you must construct a new instance.
On Aug 26, 10:51 am, Armando Blancas
wrote:
> I ran your sequence without redefining Foo and got 20 inst
Perhaps I should have explained why I think 20 should be the right
answer.
This is based on my expectation that once I've compiled a file the
behavior of records or types defined in that file will not change
(unless I re-bind functions called by the record or type). The above
behavior violates thi
I have now submitted small modifications that permit AOT compilation. The
compile time was small -- on the order of 1 to 2 sec of the total CPU time,
which is often a small percentage of the long runs that are reported on the
shootout web site.
But of course it is better if it is not included in
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Chouser wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Jon Seltzer
> wrote:
> > I know what assoc does:
> >
> > user=> (assoc [\a \b \c] 0 \d) ;please extend to much larger vector
> > with index somewhere in the middle
> > [\d \b \c]
> >
> > but what if I want:
> >
As the other posters mention, Clojure does have a compiler. However,
you don't always need to use it explicitly.
Clojure will compile all input before executing it and once it's
compiled it runs with the exact performance it would if it had been
compiled ahead of time.
There's no interpreted laye
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Chouser wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Jon Seltzer wrote:
>> I know what assoc does:
>>
>> user=> (assoc [\a \b \c] 0 \d) ;please extend to much larger vector
>> with index somewhere in the middle
>> [\d \b \c]
>>
>> but what if I want:
>>
>> user=> (
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Jon Seltzer wrote:
> I know what assoc does:
>
> user=> (assoc [\a \b \c] 0 \d) ;please extend to much larger vector
> with index somewhere in the middle
> [\d \b \c]
>
> but what if I want:
>
> user=> (assoc-x [\a \b \c] 0 \d) ;is there an assoc-x
> [\a \d \b \c
I ran your sequence without redefining Foo and got 20 instead of 1/5.
I don't know how that redefinition affects the evaluation of bar.
Clojure 1.2.0
user=> (defprotocol Foo (bar [this x]))
Foo
user=> (defrecord fooed [] Foo (bar [this x] (* 2 x)))
user.fooed
user=> (extend-type Object Foo (bar [t
On Aug 26, 12:26 am, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26 Aug., 07:58, Isaac Gouy wrote:
>
> > Have you actually measured the time difference?
If you have measured the time difference with/without AOT compilation
then apparently you don't wish to share those measurements. Oh well.
Witho
I know what assoc does:
user=> (assoc [\a \b \c] 0 \d) ;please extend to much larger vector
with index somewhere in the middle
[\d \b \c]
but what if I want:
user=> (assoc-x [\a \b \c] 0 \d) ;is there an assoc-x
[\a \d \b \c]
I don't see a function that does this. I'm sure I'm missing it. I
I'm posting here because it seems more people rely on this lein plugin than
I had thought. I've patched native-deps to work with lein 1.3.0 but haven't
yet pushed to Clojars which I'll do later today. In the meantime you can
clone the repo, http://github.com/swannodette/native-deps, and run the
fol
Hi,
On 26 Aug., 17:02, HB wrote:
> Hey,
> Basically, I understand what let form does but I'm not sure when to
> use it.
> Would you please enlighten me about it? (if possible some typical Java
> code and then covert it to Clojure let form).
> I really appreciate your time and help.
> Thanks.
Str
Hey,
Basically, I understand what let form does but I'm not sure when to
use it.
Would you please enlighten me about it? (if possible some typical Java
code and then covert it to Clojure let form).
I really appreciate your time and help.
Thanks.
--
You received this message because you are subscr
On Aug 26, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Right in the middle of Clojure and Rails - the Secret Sauce Behind
> FlightCaster [1] I came across print-dup function. I thought I'd find
> out a bit more about it using (doc print-dup) which eventually
> yielded:
>
> devmac:~ jacek
Thank you Phil,
I will give it a try today. If it does not work I'll filter the resulting
jar files to retain only our name spaces.
I'll come back with the status later today.
Luc P.
Phil Hagelberg wrote ..
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:59 PM, wrote:
> > We are completing the migration to cloj
Greetings:
I am trying to use bit-shift-left and/or bit-shift-right with the
first arg being a number that is larger than 32 bits, so it cannot be
an int, and the second arg must be a variable, not a constant, e.g.
(set! *warn-on-reflection* true)
(defn my-left-shift [a-is-bigger-than-int b-is-r
I may have misunderstood what I've read about protocols, so please set
me straight if the following is wrong -
On Aug 25, 11:08 pm, Stuart Halloway
wrote:
> I think the current behavior follows the principle of least surprise:
>
> (1) bar is a function, in whatever namespace the protocol Foo is d
Hi,
Right in the middle of Clojure and Rails - the Secret Sauce Behind
FlightCaster [1] I came across print-dup function. I thought I'd find
out a bit more about it using (doc print-dup) which eventually
yielded:
devmac:~ jacek$ clj
Clojure 1.2.0
user=> (doc print-dup)
-
c
Hi,
On 26 Aug., 07:58, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> Have you actually measured the time difference?
Compare the mandelbrot numbers for Haskell, Java and Scala. The ranges
are (0.07s 0.86s 13s), (0.19s 0.86s 12s), (0.22s 0.97s 15s). So Java
and Scala are not slower than Haskell, but the low iteration num
31 matches
Mail list logo
