Indeed, I should definitely recur as you do
Le vendredi 10 janvier 2014, Mark Engelberg a écrit :
> Laurent, your approach doesn't quite work:
> => (uniquify ["a_1" "a" "a"] (fn [s n] (str s \_ n)))
> ["a_1" "a" "a_1"]
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> okay, new take solving the issue raised by Mark:
>
> (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))
> new-item (format-fn item n)]
> (recur (next in)
> (merge-with (fnil + 0)
> item-nbrs
> (hash-map item 1 new-item 1))
> (conj out new-item))))))
>
> => (uniquify ["a" "b" "c" "a" "a_1" "a_1" "a"] #(str %1 "_" %2))
> ["a" "b" "c" "a_1" "a_1_1" "a_1_2" "a_2"]
>
>
>
> 2014/1/10 Colin Yates <colin.ya...@gmail.com>
>
> Gosh - my public humiliation continues. Here is one that actually works:
>
> (first (reduce (fn [[results seen] item]
> (let [cnt (get seen item 0)]
> [(conj results (if (> cnt 0) (format-fn item cnt)
> item))
> (assoc seen item (inc cnt))]))
> [[] {}]
> items))
> (fact "strings can be made unique"
> (s/uniquify ["a" "b" "c"]) => ["a" "b" "c"]
> (s/uniquify ["a" "b" "a" "c" "b" "b" "b" "b" "a"]) => ["a" "b" "a_1" "c"
> "b_1" "b_2" "b_3" "b_4" "a_2"])
>
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 20:59:00 UTC, Colin Yates wrote:
>
> Sorry - wrong c/p:
>
> (first (reduce (fn [[results seen] item]
> (let [cnt (get seen item 0)
> item (if (> cnt 0) (format-fn item cnt) item)]
> [(conj results item) (assoc seen item (inc cnt))]))
> [[] {}]
> items))
>
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 20:55:04 UTC, Colin Yates wrote:
>
> I thought I would have a go myself without copying (although having read
> them earlier) the other functions and this is what I came up with:
>
> (first (reduce (fn [[results seen] item]
> (let [occurrences ((fnil identity 0) (get seen item))
> seen (assoc seen item (inc occurrences))
> item (if (> occurrences 0) (format-fn item
> occurrences) item)]
> [(conj results item) seen])) [[] {}] (seq items)))
>
> This doesn't solve the problem you mention, but baby steps.
>
> Being really anal I could claim the original a_2 should remain a_2 and the
> third instance of a jump to being a_3. I thought about this and couldn't
> see how to do this with reduce because I really want to say "oh, I have a
> new name, recurse into the function again with the new proposed name", i.e.
> loop the generation of the proposed name until it is unique, but I haven't
> got that far yet (without potentially blowing the stack!)
>
> Then I saw your 'recur' used outside of a loop which points the way...
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Friday, 10 January 2014 20:16:28 UTC, puzzler wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Colin Yates <colin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > way to take the wind out of our sails! W
>
>
--
--
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.
