On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 7:54:37 PM UTC+2, Luc wrote: > > I can safely assume that the input state is also a set. >
This emphasizes the toughest aspect of comprehending Clojure code: it is not at all about conciseness or FP, but about dynamism. We just don't know what value has what type so we develop hypotheses and see how they stand up. Here, *cells* is the last argument to *mapcat* so it must be seqable---clue number 1. *cells* is also a function accepting *loc* as argument---clue number 2. So it could be a map, a set, or a vector. We eliminate vector because (*cells loc*) doesn't make a lot of sense against a vector. So... is it a map or a set? It could be either. Is *loc* of the same type as the element type of *cells*? Could be---if yes, then *cells* would fit the requirements for a set. Otherwise *cells* could also be a map from * loc* to some *cell* type that this code doesn't use. With that in mind, I must comment that, at least to my eyes, this is a perfectly comprehensible piece of code, quite transparent in fact---as transparent as Clojure gets. Under no criterion can this be classified as obfuscated code because it doesn't play any tricks with the human reader---in every detail it is an idiomatic, natural representation of the problem it is solving. -marko -- -- 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/groups/opt_out.
