On 4 September 2011 20:40, Dennis Haupt wrote:
>
> Am 04.09.2011 19:08, schrieb Justin Kramer:
>> On Sunday, September 4, 2011 12:21:23 PM UTC-4, HamsterofDeath
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Some other comments:
>>
>> - Nested defns are not good.
>
> why? imo, nested function/method definitions are a tool to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 06.09.2011 16:28, schrieb Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak):
>
> Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011 15:57:16 UTC+2 schrieb Mark
> Rathwell:
>
> You want an anonymous function:
>
> (fn [x] (= x 2))
>
> or the equivalent shorthand form:
>
> #(= % 2)
>
> O
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
> or the equivalent shorthand form:
>
> #(= % 2)
>
should i ever write a bigger app with clojure, it will be filled with
these. i like them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http:
Am Dienstag, 6. September 2011 15:57:16 UTC+2 schrieb Mark Rathwell:
>
> You want an anonymous function:
>
> (fn [x] (= x 2))
>
> or the equivalent shorthand form:
>
> #(= % 2)
>
Or even more short-hand: #{2} (for all 2s not in #{nil false})
Scary.
Sincerely
Meikel
--
You received this mess
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> It was not a syntax error. Your expression just had the wrong
> return value. I don't see how an IDE could help here.
>
>
by type inference. i don't know how far an ide could track the types
in clojure since it's completely lacking any type ann
You want an anonymous function:
(fn [x] (= x 2))
or the equivalent shorthand form:
#(= % 2)
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Dennis Haupt wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> figured it out, i the () were a bit messed up. the working code:
>
> (def op
Hi,
On Tuesday, September 6, 2011 3:35:08 PM UTC+2, HamsterofDeath wrote:
>
>
> (every? (= parameter player) currow
> i'd like to write something like:
>
> do i have to define the function via letfn before, or is there a way
> to do it nested in the code?
>
you can create a function anytime using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
thx, that's what i figured out a moment ago. i am used to allknowing ides
Am 06.09.2011 15:25, schrieb Stefan Kamphausen:
> hi,
>
> why does clojure want to cast the result to IFn?
>
>
> if I parse that correctly, you have two parens around the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
figured it out, i the () were a bit messed up. the working code:
(def open 0)
(def p1 1)
(def p2 2)
(def emptyfield [open open open open open open open open open])
(defn indexOf [x y] (+ x (* y 3)))
(defn withmove [x,y,player,field]
(assoc field (
hi,
> why does clojure want to cast the result to IFn?
>
if I parse that correctly, you have two parens around the let-expression.
That leads to Clojure evaluating the let-expression, taking the result
(which is the return value of the line you mentioned: a Boolean) and trying
to call that as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i tried using letfn insteaf of defn for inner functions.
(def open 0)
(def p1 1)
(def p2 2)
(def emptyfield [open open open open open open open open open])
(defn indexOf [x y] (+ x (* y 3)))
(defn withmove [x,y,player,field]
(assoc field (indexOf
> i started with a tic tac toe implementation, but i'm stuck:
I used the same example problem last year to teach Clojure to two
people that were new to programming. Hopefully you'll find their code
helpful.
https://github.com/algarete13/tic-tac-toe
--
You received this message because you
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Dennis Haupt wrote:
>> - Nested defns are not good.
> why? imo, nested function/method definitions are a tool to fine-tune
> accessibility. just like public/private, but much more powerful. why
Right, but defn binds function names at the top-level (which is why
it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 04.09.2011 19:04, schrieb Luc Prefontaine:
> Have a look at reduce:
>
> (reduce conj [] (take 9 (cycle [0])))
>
> take returns a lazy seq. but reduce will return you a vector.
>
> Looks like you try to translate as if you were using a language
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 04.09.2011 19:08, schrieb Justin Kramer:
> On Sunday, September 4, 2011 12:21:23 PM UTC-4, HamsterofDeath
> wrote:
>
> * in the last loop where i am just printing out what i want to do,
> i need something like "foldLeft" (from scala). how do i fold
Dennis, may I suggest you to read this great article on Clojure:
http://java.ociweb.com/mark/clojure/article.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new me
On Sunday, September 4, 2011 12:21:23 PM UTC-4, HamsterofDeath wrote:
>
> * in the last loop where i am just printing out what i want to do, i
> need something like "foldLeft" (from scala). how do i fold in clojure?
>
doseq is the way to iterate over a collection and perform side effects:
(let [mo
Have a look at reduce:
(reduce conj [] (take 9 (cycle [0])))
take returns a lazy seq. but reduce will return you a vector.
Looks like you try to translate as if you were using a language that allows
mutations but you use functions to hold values that you redefine since mutation
is restricted
t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
solved my last problem, and now i'm stucker than before:
(def open 0)
(def p1 1)
(def p2 2)
(def emptyfield [open open open open open open open open open])
(defn updated [seq index replacement]
(concat
(take index seq)
[replacement]
(dr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i started with a tic tac toe implementation, but i'm stuck:
(def open 0)
(def p1 1)
(def p2 2)
(def emptyfield [open open open open open open open open open])
(defn updated [seq index replacement]
(concat
(take index seq)
[replacement]
You can also put a commented out example call of the function, like this:
(defn some-magic [spells wizards]
...)
; (some-magic 5 [:gendalf :einstein])
Which is also handy for quick evaluation in the REPL.
Or you can put these example calls in the (automatic) test code.
--
You received this mes
On Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
HamsterofDeath wrote:
> this might seem like a stupid question, but for me, not knowing the
> type of something is like being stuck in a dead end for anything non
> trivial.
It's not stupid, it's normal :)
In functional programming, most of the time you w
this might seem like a stupid question, but for me, not knowing the
type of something is like being stuck in a dead end for anything non
trivial. i've made a few little experiments with clojure (not much,
just testing some features) and i see how powerful clojure can be -
for small to medium sized
23 matches
Mail list logo
