sorry that last nth should've been (nth % i nil)
On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-8, Beau Fabry wrote:
>
> With specter:
>
> (map-indexed (fn [i name] (sp/transform sp/MAP-VALS #(nth % i) optij))
> (:name optij))
> => ({:name :tom, :age 1, :tone :do} {:name :dick, :age 2, :tone :re}
> {:name :harry, :age 3, :tone :mi})
>
> Without:
>
> (map-indexed (fn [i name] (into {} (map (fn [[k v]] [k (nth v i)])
> optij))) (:name optij))
> => ({:name :tom, :age 1, :tone :do} {:name :dick, :age 2, :tone :re}
> {:name :harry, :age 3, :tone :mi})
>
> If I didn't know which key was the canonical full list, ie some could be
> shorter and in that case I wanted nil:
>
> (map (fn [i] (sp/transform sp/MAP-VALS #(nth % i) optij)) (range 0 (inc
> (apply max (map (comp count vals) optij)))))
> => ({:name :tom, :age 1, :tone :do} {:name :dick, :age 2, :tone :re}
> {:name :harry, :age 3, :tone :mi})
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 7:27:24 AM UTC-8, hiskennyness wrote:
>>
>> Whenever I code something like this I get the feeling a clojure guru
>> could do it more simply, and I love learning new tricks.
>>
>> Here is my simple (real-world, btw) problem and solution. Is there a
>> better way?
>>
>> ;; Problem: given optimized* json maps (* to avoid duplicating keys):
>> (def optij {:name [:tom :dick :harry]
>> :age [1 2 3]
>> :tone [:do :re :mi]})
>>
>> ;; ... produce normal repetitious maps
>> (comment
>> [{:name :tom, :age 1, :tone :do}
>> {:name :dick, :age 2, :tone :re}
>> {:name :harry, :age 3, :tone :mi}])
>>
>> ;; goal #1: pivot so I can use zipmap
>> (comment
>> ((:tom 1 :do) (:dick 2 :re) (:harry 3 :mi)))
>>
>> ;; my goal #1 approach (improvements welcome):
>> (apply (partial map (fn [& vs] vs))
>> (vals optij))
>>
>> (apply (partial map vector)
>> (vals optij))
>>
>> ;; my overall approach (improvements welcome):
>> (let [ks (keys optij)
>> vs-pivoted (apply (partial map vector)
>> (vals optij))]
>> (vec (for [attributes vs-pivoted]
>> (zipmap ks attributes))))
>>
>>
>> Final fun question: is the original idea of compressing JSON this way
>> commonplace? I thought everyone was just saying to hell with the
>> duplication and taking the convenience of self-defining objects, but
>> apparently one source is not.
>>
>
--
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 members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
