Take a look at mapv. If you aren't dealing with lazy sequence, it'll map
the function across and convert the output to a vector.
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 7:28:47 PM UTC-4, Joseph Rollins wrote:
>
> I am confused about the best way to assure that I am dealing with a vector
> when dealing with core library functions that often return seq where I then
> lose my ability to access it using associative accesses (get-in
> specifically).
>
> My particular use case is as follows:
>
> I am modeling a matrix as nested vectors
>
> [[0 0 0] [0 1 1] [0 1 1]]
>
> represents
>
> 0 0 0
> 0 1 1
> 0 1 1
>
> I know matrix libraries exist, but for the sake of learning am rolling my
> own functionality. I have several functions that operate on this:
>
> (defn transpose [piece]
> (apply mapv vector piece))
>
> (defn translate-block
> ([mm] (let [one? #(if (= 1 %) true false)]
> (translate-block mm one?)))
> ([mm f] (map #(map f %) mm)))
>
> (defn rotate-left [b]
> (->> b
> transpose
> reverse))
>
> The problem I am running into is that these do not output nested vectors,
> but nested seqs (due to all of the map operations). I am using these
> matrices to program Tetris, and I am writing a function that takes a Tetris
> block, a Tetris board (both represented as matrices) and a position of the
> block inside the board. The function is supposed to determine if the
> placement of the block is valid (not overlapping already placed blocks:
>
> (defn is-valid?
> "Determine if a game state is valid (is current piece place-able)."
> [{board :board {:keys [piece pos]} :piece}]
> (let [[x y] pos
> coords (for [rows (range (count piece))
> cols (range (count (first piece)))]
> [[rows cols] [(+ y rows) (+ x cols)]])]
> (map (fn [[c cc]]
> (and (get-in board cc) (get-in piece c)))
> coords)))
>
> The matrices hold true and false values for if occupied. When testing this
> function I realized get-in was just returning nil because it wouldnt get in
> a seq (non-associative). What is the best way to assure that when I need
> associative guarantees that they haven't been thrown away through previous
> transformations of the board or piece matrices?
>
> The two choices I see are making sure every function that operates on the
> matrices explicitly outputs nested vectors again, or transforming the input
> to functions that need the guarantees to nested vectors explicitly. Am I
> missing something here, or, if not, what is the idiomatic way to solve this
> problem?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Joseph
>
--
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.
