Clojure Users,
I'm relatively new to clojure and wanted to get some workflow advice.
I often find myself staring at something like this:
(defun func1 [a b c d] (func5 (let [f (func3 c)] (func2 a b f)) (let
[e 5] (func4 c d e
and wishing for a function to automatically and idiomatically break
.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2:25 pm, John Fries wrote:
> > I agree with Jeffrey that there is no reason to have just one option.
>
> I never suggested there ought to be only one option, nor am I trying
> to argue against the ut
(NP-complete), but so much work has been done on it
that in practice we can solve very large instances efficiently (and any SAT
problem is solvable given enough time and memory). The underlying SAT
solvers seem to be improving at a tremendous rate, so a system that
interfaces to them benefits from all t
nd oranges though. Datalog may
>> be a basic reasoner, but it's a simple recursive query language for
>> data. Can you even get all results out of a SAT solver or do they stop
>> when satisfiable?
>>
>> It's for this query purpose that I envisioned primar
d to
support an audience whose primary language was Java, the user must express
their queries using a Java class-based syntax. But this seems like a
perfect use of Clojure, which could provide a much more natural query
syntax.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Rich Hickey wrote:
>
>
>
> I expect to provide full-on evaluable predicates, which I believe are
> outside of the original Datalog scope, but I will still require the
> "safe query" rules for those.
>
> On Feb 4, 12:41 pm, John Fries wrote:
> > AFAICT, Datalog only supports the closed-world
AFAICT, Datalog only supports the closed-world assumption. Does
anyone prefer an open-world assumption reasoner? In my opinion, they
are significantly more powerful.
On Feb 4, 6:16 am, Timothy Pratley wrote:
> > providing relations from clojure-sets and sql-queries.
>
> Wow - this is really ne
