Re: Navigators and lenses

Jason Felice writes: > I'm very curious why most lens libraries don't just use fns with arity 1 > and 2. Glad you mentioned it. https://github.com/active-group/active-clojure/commit/51fd8984f2dcebc1af7ee91fc36e3360299c6fed -- Regards, Mike -- You received this

Re: Navigators and lenses

I'm very curious why most lens libraries don't just use fns with arity 1 and 2. (I'm going to guess that Specter doesn't because it wants more introspection into the lenses for optimization purposes.) On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Mark Engelberg wrote: > On Mar 9,

Re: Navigators and lenses

On Mar 9, 2017 9:52 AM, "Brandon Bloom" wrote: >> > > Since you're responding to me specifically, I'd like to be clear that I never made that claim. I only said we need more experimentation. This is a sufficiently big enough area of ideas to warrant exploration of

Re: Navigators and lenses

> > But I don't agree at all with the claim that Specter is some sort of > offbeat, ill-researched version of lenses. > Since you're responding to me specifically, I'd like to be clear that I never made that claim. I only said we need more experimentation. This is a sufficiently big enough

Re: Navigators and lenses

At this point, I feel like dismissing your library outright. But I'd like to reconsider and believe that you just fumbled to express your true intents. Maybe try a do over? I'd like to know... Did you research Specter? Did you research Haskell lenses and racket lenses? Did you spend 2 months

Re: Navigators and lenses

Nathan, I am deeply sorry for offending you. Truly. It was not my intent. My entire argument can be boiled down to Specter reminds me of the Common Lisp LOOP macro. Is that like saying "I don't like parentheses"? Maybe. Again, I apologize. Edwin On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 10:15:55 AM

Re: Navigators and lenses

Edwin, these personal comments about me are extremely inappropriate. Your claim that I ignore the work of others is just plain wrong, and that you would make such comments out of the blue is truly incomprehensible. You claim Specter is "deeply un-Clojure-y" without providing a single example.

Re: Navigators and lenses

puzzler, I guess I haven't said this, but I think it's worth saying that I have nothing against Specter. Godspeed to people who want to use it. And I don't think it should be judged against some other facility in another language; human progress would cease if for every Y, Y has to be a better

Re: Navigators and lenses

Alex, I deeply appreciate the diligent virtue policing, but I don't think calling out the Comité de salut public is necessary. There was no attack: I'm much more a Nathan than a Rich person. The world needs both kinds of people. For me, Clojure would have simply been Yet Another Lisp had

Re: Navigators and lenses

Just finished reading through Racket's lens library to compare. Specter can do everything that Racket's lens library can do, but the converse is not true. Specter's navigators can do more than lenses. The lens-like navigators are the most obviously useful parts of Specter, and maybe for some

Re: Navigators and lenses

A big one I forgot: RDF's query language SPARQL: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 5:35:42 PM UTC-8, Brandon Bloom wrote: > > Responsible adults sometimes needs to access and modify deeply nested data >> structures > > > So far, my experience has been that

Navigators and lenses

Edwin, we can have technical discussions about this topic without comparing Nathan to Rich or making comments about Nathan that may feel like a personal attack. Thanks -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send

Re: Navigators and lenses

On Mar 8, 2017 5:44 PM, "Edwin Watkeys" wrote: Hey, The recent heat about Specter got me thinking. There's legitimate pain that Spectre solves: Responsible adults sometimes needs to access and modify deeply nested data structures, and Clojure's batteries-included facilities for

Re: Navigators and lenses

> > Responsible adults sometimes needs to access and modify deeply nested data > structures So far, my experience has been that it is almost always better to build a pair of flattening and unflattening transforms on the data. Especially since you frequently want only one flattening, but

Navigators and lenses

Hey, The recent heat about Specter got me thinking. There's legitimate pain that Spectre solves: Responsible adults sometimes needs to access and modify deeply nested data structures, and Clojure's batteries-included facilities for doing so can be tedious. But Specter is deeply un-Clojure-y,