On 10/01/14, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> What about this one?
>
> Inspired by Stefan's, with more destructuring in loop, format-fn as a
> function, initial call to (seq) then (next) instead of (rest), placing the
> exit argument first so that it's not lost at the end of the function,
> renamed word as item since this function does not depend on the type of
> items.
>
> (defn uniquify [in format-fn]
> (loop [[item :as in] (seq in)
> {n item :as item-nbrs} {}
> out []]
> (if-not in
> out
> (let [format-fn (if n format-fn (constantly item))]
> (recur (next in)
> (update-in item-nbrs [item] (fnil inc 0))
> (conj out (format-fn item n)))))))
Yeah, that's better. I like using `if-not` instead of `if` - it puts
the base case first, which I find preferable. An adequate format
function can be given by defining a single-parameter version of
`uniquify`.
--
Stefan Kanev ¦ @skanev ¦ http://skanev.com/
Think of all the psychic energy expended in seeking a fundamental distinction
between "algorithm" and "program".
--
--
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.
