There are/have been some implementations of the ideas mentioned in the
original post:
1. Smalltalk - I used the Squeak implementation in college and found it
terribly frustrating when the image would crash.
2. IBM VisualAge for Java - I used this about 15 years ago. It still used
files for each
+1
2012/7/20 Syed Mazhar udDaula Khurram j2ee.soluti...@gmail.com:
+1
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:41 PM, George McKinney ghalbert...@gmail.com
wrote:
+1
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 6:03:46 PM UTC-7, aboy021 wrote:
Is there anywhere that I can get a Clojure sticker?
--
You received this
Hi,
I'm excited to release another Typed Clojure alpha.
https://github.com/frenchy64/typed-clojure
Leiningen: [typed 0.1-alpha5]
TC is usable enough to play around with, but has many limitations, some
outlined in the README.
See the examples, you can check them like so:
Hmm, okay, so if apply unpacks all the arguments and feeds them all to my
anonymous function, then this should work:
(apply #([ everything] println first everything) @visitors)
but instead I get:
Unable to resolve symbol: in this context
[Thrown class java.lang.RuntimeException]
Thanks for the references.
*You have to realize that using lazy-seqs and clojure collections in
general are
non-starters since they don't yet support primitives yet and will never
be as optimized as existing Fortran (read BLAS/LAPACK) and Java code.*
Good point. I wasn't even thinking abou
Arguments are implicit with the #(...) form, if you want explicit arguments you
can use (fn [ e] (println (first e))). But, in that case, there is no reason
for apply.
apply turns this:
(apply str [a b c])
into this:
(str a b c)
If you want to use all elements in a collection as
Le 22 juil. 2012 à 18:39, larry google groups lawrencecloj...@gmail.com a
écrit :
Hmm, okay, so if apply unpacks all the arguments and feeds them all to my
anonymous function, then this should work:
(apply #([ everything] println first everything) @visitors)
This should read:
I found that if I define a protocol like this:
(defprotocol IProc
(procMethod [this] some method))
I can invoke it on a type either
(procMethod object)
or
(.procMethod object)
Note the prefix dot in the second case.
I like this dot version because that means I can replace a record field
I plan to change all my major data structures to records instead of plain
maps. Since record has everything a map provides, I figure there won't be
any harm. But is that really so? Would appreciate the opinions from people
who know better.
--
You received this message because you are
Since 2000 I've been doing web development, first with PHP and then with
Ruby On Rails. In the world of PHP, there are some frameworks, such as
Symfony, that have classes for managing forms, both generating the HTML for
the forms, and also handling the validation of the forms. In the world of
In Elisp, with defvar I can specify a docstring for a variable. I could
not find how to do that in Clojure with def and defrecord. Can someone
show me the way? Thank you.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Clojure group.
To post to this group, send
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Warren Lynn wrn.l...@gmail.com wrote:
In Elisp, with defvar I can specify a docstring for a variable. I could
not find how to do that in Clojure with def and defrecord. Can someone
show me the way? Thank you.
http://clojure.org/special_forms
(def sym docstring
http://clojure.org/special_forms
(def sym docstring 'value)
I don't think defrecord creates a Var so I don't think you can specify
a docstring for that?
Thanks that works for symbols. I know derecord does not create a Var, but
it would still be nice to be able to have a doc string.
On Jul 22, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Warren Lynn wrote:
I plan to change all my major data structures to records instead of plain
maps. Since record has everything a map provides, I figure there won't be any
harm. But is that really so? Would appreciate the opinions from people who
know better.
I
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Lee Spector lspec...@hampshire.edu wrote:
I know I'm in the minority but I happen to prefer maps to records, and in
fact I really like struct-maps which I gather may (?) not be long for this
world. Nonetheless, since you asked, following are two old messages
I don't think you're in the minority. I prefer regular maps to records
in general. struct-map was deprecated a long time ago (in Clojure
1.2). clojure.java.jdbc stopped using struct-map a while back - at the
recommendation of Clojure/core - in favor of regular maps.
Chas Emerick's
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Warren Lynn wrn.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Could you elaborate a little bit more? I know there is a chart, but the
chart does not tell you why.
Hmm, I thought the flowchart gave pretty good reasons, sorry :(
Records aren't as flexible and you'll lose the type anyway
I think defrecord has 5 downsides compared to regular map.
1. The literal of regular map is eye-friendly and portable.
However I still don't know how helpful instant literals added in clojure
1.4 is for records.
2. The construction of record depends on an order of arguments.
Sometimes, I feel
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Takahiro Hozumi fat...@googlemail.com wrote:
2. The construction of record depends on an order of arguments.
Sometimes, I feel that a lack of construction with key-value style is not
convenient.
(defrecord Foo ...
will give you `-Foo` `map-Foo` for free. The
Baishampayan
I didn't know `map-Foo`. Thank you for the infomation!
On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:11:45 PM UTC+9, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Takahiro Hozumi fat...@googlemail.com
wrote:
2. The construction of record depends on an order of arguments.
20 matches
Mail list logo
