Actually my solution is wrong! It works for this particular example,
but not if there are nodes with overlapping values.
Doh!
My main point was just that "into" is a under used gem, that I wanted
to publicize a bit. Next time I'll try to find an example that is
actually correct!
On Dec 3, 12:46 pm, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes,
>
> though I've always found 'into a little bit too magical for me.
> For example, I find it hard to follow the doc to see what 'adding' will mean
> for maps.
>
> 2010/12/3 George Jahad <cloj...@blackbirdsystems.net>
>
>
>
> > > (apply
> > > merge-with
> > > conj
> > > {}
> > > (for [nd d nd-pair nd face nd-pair]
> > > {face nd}))
>
> > I like to use into for cases like this:
>
> > (into {} (for [nd d nd-pair nd face nd-pair] [face nd]))
>
> > seems clearer to me.
>
> > g
>
> > --
> > 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<clojure%2bunsubscr...@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 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
