On Jan 15, 1:21 pm, Nicolas Buduroi wrote:
> Hi, I'm still not familiar with laziness and I'm trying to make a
> function recursively walk arbitrary data structures to perform some
> action on all strings.
> ...
> Is there a way too make a fully lazy version of this function?
>
> - budu
I'm tryin
On Jan 15, 1:21 pm, Nicolas Buduroi wrote:
> Hi, I'm still not familiar with laziness and I'm trying to make a
> function recursively walk arbitrary data structures to perform some
> action on all strings. The non-lazy version is quite easy to do:
>
> (use
> 'clojure.walk
> 'clojure.contrib.st
On Jan 16, 4:01 am, mac wrote:
> I am just now in a situation where I have to do some swing programming
> and this seems like it has great potential!
> Since it's already version 1.0 you should put it on Clojars so that it
> is easier to use from leiningen or maven etc.
Good call. I just put it u
Sorry, I forgot to ask: how rapid is "rapidly"?
Can you provide a simple example that rapidly blows the stack
so we can experiment with lazy solutions?
-tom
On Jan 15, 1:21 pm, Nicolas Buduroi wrote:
>
> But it blow up the stack quite rapidly, ...
> ...
> - budu
--
You received this mes
On Jan 15, 1:44 pm, Nicolas Buduroi wrote:
> On Jan 15, 3:25 pm, Sean Devlin wrote:
>
> > Did you try wrapping everything w/ a call to lazy-seq?
>
> Yes, it doesn't seem change anything.
I suspect that just wrapping everything in a call to lazy-seq cannot
work
in this case. In the implementatio
For the non lazy version , maybe using clojure.zip would help not blow
up the stack ?
(using clojure.zip/zip + a loop with recur on clojure.zip/next) ?
2010/1/15 Nicolas Buduroi :
> Hi, I'm still not familiar with laziness and I'm trying to make a
> function recursively walk arbitrary data struct
On Saturday 16 January 2010 18:10:15 Shantanu Kumar wrote:
> The best benefit of Clojure is, I think, the power-to-weight ratio.
That's a really good description for a low barrier to entry. :-)
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
--
You received this m
One third "main selling point", just for you ;-) :
Clojure has a rooted in it a development paradigm suited to manage
state of identities over time.
That is, clojure embraces the "functional paradigm" for most of the
development process, but does not leave you "naked" when time comes to
write thos
2010/1/15 Rayne :
> Ignore this. ;)
>
> deftype and reify and all of that good stuff are now in the Clojure
> master branch. Rich pulled new into master a few days ago.
Ah, good to know :)
The last time I checked it was not yet in master.
--
Michael Wood
--
You received this message because y
On Jan 16, 6:22 am, Julian wrote:
> Matt Raible - Spring Expert and Java consultant posted the following
> entry to Twitter:
> "Why is Clojure better than Scala or
> Groovy?"http://twitter.com/mraible/status/7793457551
>
> He went on to say:
> "Let's try that again: I like Scala and Groovy and
I am working on a project where a bunch of fn-generating macros need
to behave differently based on the current bindings. I read http://onclojure.com/2009/05/06/simulating-dynamic-scoping/
and am wondering if anyone can recommend additional resources or
example code demonstrating the interact
On 16.01.2010, at 15:22, Rich Hickey wrote:
Since Clojure already does this, you can borrow its implementation,
found in clojure.lang.Reflector. In this case, see invokeConstructor.
(clojure.lang.Reflector/invokeConstructor (class (ref "foo")) (to-
array [42]))
Great, thanks, this simplifies
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Julian wrote:
> Matt Raible - Spring Expert and Java consultant posted the following
> entry to Twitter:
> "Why is Clojure better than Scala or Groovy?"
If I had to pick just one specific feature (which may be a bad
way to going about answering this, but anyway...
On Jan 16, 6:17 am, Rich Hickey wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM, ataggart wrote:
> > Some people have had issues with c.c.logging in that it looks for a
> > suitable logging implementation at macro-expansion-time (by simply
> > trying to import the necessary classes), which thus also
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Julian wrote:
> Matt Raible - Spring Expert and Java consultant posted the following
> entry to Twitter:
> "Why is Clojure better than Scala or Groovy?"
> http://twitter.com/mraible/status/7793457551
>
> He went on to say:
> "Let's try that again: I like Scala and
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2010, at 23:09, .Bill Smith wrote:
>
>> Every class object has a newInstance method:
>>
>> user=> (Class/forName "java.util.HashMap")
>> java.util.HashMap
>> user=> (.newInstance (Class/forName "java.util.HashMap"))
>> #
>> user=>
>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM, ataggart wrote:
> Some people have had issues with c.c.logging in that it looks for a
> suitable logging implementation at macro-expansion-time (by simply
> trying to import the necessary classes), which thus also occurs during
> AOT compilation; the down-side is
Hi,
Am 16.01.2010 um 01:48 schrieb Scott Burson:
> Certainly, this is a very common idiom in Common Lisp and other older
> dialects. I guess there are a few people who don't like it, but a lot
> of us do it routinely. You'll even see stuff like
>
> (or (try-to-construct-a-foo)
> (error
Matt Raible - Spring Expert and Java consultant posted the following
entry to Twitter:
"Why is Clojure better than Scala or Groovy?"
http://twitter.com/mraible/status/7793457551
He went on to say:
"Let's try that again: I like Scala and Groovy and see no compelling
reason to learn Clojure. Am I mi
19 matches
Mail list logo
