This does look good - I'll give it a whirl - thanks for the example :-)
Jules
On Monday, 13 July 2015 11:00:55 UTC+1, Jonathan Winandy wrote:
To me it's a very good option.
Given you example :
(./pull '[org.clojure/core.logic 0.8.10])
(ns yo (:refer-clojure :exclude [==]) (:use
Have you already looked at core.logic?
On Monday, 13 July 2015, craig worrall craig.worr...@transacumen.com
wrote:
You may have already discounted Java versions, but just in case ...
http://www.javacodegeeks.com/2013/10/java-object-to-object-mapper.html
Craig
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at
I haven't.
Are you just suggesting it because I mentioned unification, or have you
used it and know that it might be a good fit ?
Thanks,
Jules
On Monday, 13 July 2015 10:37:55 UTC+1, Gary Verhaegen wrote:
Have you already looked at core.logic?
On Monday, 13 July 2015, craig worrall
To me it's a very good option.
Given you example :
(./pull '[org.clojure/core.logic 0.8.10])
(ns yo (:refer-clojure :exclude [==]) (:use [clojure.core.logic]))
(defne a-to-b [x y]
([ {:a {:b b :c c}} [b [c]] ]))
(run* [a]
(a-to-b a [1 [2]]))
;#= ({:a {:b 1, :c 2}})
On 13 July
I was hoping for something in idiomatic Clojure - but I'll take a look
thanks.
Jules
On Monday, 13 July 2015 04:45:00 UTC+1, craig worrall wrote:
You may have already discounted Java versions, but just in case ...
http://www.javacodegeeks.com/2013/10/java-object-to-object-mapper.html
I have not used it. I'm mentioning it because you mentioned unification and
prolog and because you basically want a two-way function, which is what was
touted as the ideal use-case for core.logic when it was heavily discussed
on this list a few months (years?) ago.
I'm not aware of the details of
You may have already discounted Java versions, but just in case ...
http://www.javacodegeeks.com/2013/10/java-object-to-object-mapper.html
Craig
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 3:53:19 AM UTC+10, Jules wrote:
Guys,
I have an external and an internal data representation.
I need to define
Guys,
I have an external and an internal data representation.
I need to define transforms both ways.
Both models are structured.
A pair of in/out functions might look like:
(fn [{{b :b c c:} :a}] [b [c]])
(fn [[b [c]] {:a {:b b :c c}})
I just typed that OTTOMH so please forgive any
