Sorry, I have no idea what you mean...
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:56 PM, jayvandal wrote:
> I have tried the example you provided and it works except I don't see
> any file printout of the records when I run not as test but without
> test. Is test going to show any data? Can I ask for a record co
Hi Alan,
Thanks- that explains it: dropping to extend works as expected.
--
Peter Taoussanis
--
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
I have tried the example you provided and it works except I don't see
any file printout of the records when I run not as test but without
test. Is test going to show any data? Can I ask for a record count?
why doesn't the sql jar show for every example that is in the
internet?
Thanks
On Dec 24,
Hi everyone,
Boing is now compatible with Clojure 1.3. Details can be found at
https://github.com/lprefontaine/Boing/wiki/Using-Boing.
It now depends solely on Clojure. No need for contrib anymore.
Next release is planned in late January, details can be found at
https://github.com/lprefontaine/
Thanks Cedric. I did something along the lines of what you suggested
(created a function instead of a macro).
Here's what I did to get time in seconds:
(defn run-myfunc []
(let [starttime (System/nanoTime)]
(myfunc)
(/ (- (System/nanoTime) starttime) 1e9)))
and then to produce timings
Hello Clojure community!
I'd like to announce the release of a small and simple hexdump
utility. As is usually the case, this project was born out of a need
I had in my own work which often requires looking at raw data dumps.
This is my first time releasing any Clojure code so any feedback is
ver
I just pushed out version 1.3.4 of Swank Clojure.
The main feature in this release is Derek Mansen's work integrating
clj-stacktrace into the debugger frames, so now you can get stack traces
with alignment and colorization. I'm very excited about this release
since it's a significant usability im
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:03 PM, endbegin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am new to learning clojure, and I am hoping there is a solution to
> something that is not obvious to me ... I have a function that I want
> to run multiple times, measure the time it takes to execute each
> function, and put those numbe
Hi,
I am new to learning clojure, and I am hoping there is a solution to
something that is not obvious to me ... I have a function that I want
to run multiple times, measure the time it takes to execute each
function, and put those numbers in a vector. I would like to process
that vector further b
Hi group,
I just joined the group and I'm really hypnotized with the Clojure
language. Most of the time in my day job I do .Net development but outside
of the job I'm always trying to learn and apply other languages and
technologies. The curse of the mainstream.
I've just finished Stuart's book
Overall, it's a lot of effort (not the patch but the tests)
and there's a significant potential to cripple future additions
more in line with the current syntax.
Infix notation to be safe implies the use of a lot more delimiters to avoid
ambiguities.
Clojure is not going at all in this direction.
On 26 December 2011 18:09, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> My proposition is enhance Clojure to accept both (f x) and f(x), the
> leading item can appear either after ‘(‘ as usual with classic Lisp
> notion:
> (println "Hello," "world!")
> or with conventional function call notation:
> println("Hello,
On 26/12/2011, at 6:23 PM, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> My proposition is enhance Clojure to accept both (f x) and f(x)
Fortunately, I don't see that happening, for several reasons (many of which
have been mentioned). It adds complexity, causes confusion and inconsistent
coding styles and it will break
I don't usually reply to this sort of thread, but I'll toss in two
cents worth anyway. Speaking as a PHP programmer wading his way
through the beginning-to-intermediate stages of Clojure, I have to say
that I do not like the proposed "sugar." If I wanted to write PHP in
Clojure, I'd just write PHP,
I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss it but I've found
that on Confluence:
http://dev.clojure.org/display/design/Unified+ClojureScript+and+Clojure+field+access+syntax
discussing the non-uniform Clojure/Clojurescript field access
semantics.
Just to add my 2 cents...
to me it would be
The modified reader will report no more, no less parsing error than
the current Clojure reader.
On Dec 27, 4:40 pm, Softaddicts wrote:
> Using the absence/presence of a space to influence parsing bugs me a lot...
>
> No idea about using an explicit delimiter ?
> My main concern is how can the rea
I am not suggesting switching the whole Lisp syntax, just provide a
'sugar'
((foo bar) baz) can written as (foo(bar) baz)
On Dec 27, 4:35 pm, Scott Jaderholm wrote:
> Do you support this?
>
> classic: ((foo bar) baz)
> your syntax: foo(bar)(baz)
>
> Scott
>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Lou
I believe the capability to have a portable solution in specific cases is
in the pipeline
https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Exception-Handling
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@
Using the absence/presence of a space to influence parsing bugs me a lot...
No idea about using an explicit delimiter ?
My main concern is how can the reader report a decent error message
if there's an input mistake in this context ? I feel that a mistake
can have far reaching side effects because
Do you support this?
classic: ((foo bar) baz)
your syntax: foo(bar)(baz)
Scott
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> Recently, I found freedom of coding playing with Clojure with over 20
> years’ experience on other program languages, Previously, I had
> several trials of lear
Yes, to be exactly, the simple change in the reader is after parsing a
symbol, if the following char separating the symbol is '(', the symbol
become the leading item of the following list, otherwise it is a
regular item in the current list context.
Louis
On Dec 27, 4:16 pm, Softaddicts wrote:
>
So if I understand correctly, your proposal makes the absence/presence of space
pivotal
in making the decision about parsing infix/postfix notation ?
Luc
> Luc,
> I see you and other people put great points on this subject, that is
> exactly what I wanted to know about the 'dark corner' in my i
Luc,
I see you and other people put great points on this subject, that is
exactly what I wanted to know about the 'dark corner' in my initial
post.
Just for your info, I have tried on the modified reader, the following
alternatives all works:
Clojure 1.4.0-master-SNAPSHOT
user=> (map first [[1] [2
Do we have this jar in clojars? Searched for it under "math" but could
not find it.
Found version 0.0.2 in mvnrepository.com but it is not the the version
0.0.3-SNAPSHOT mentioned in
https://github.com/clojure/math.combinatorics/blob/master/pom.xml
--
You received this message because you are sub
Do we have this jar in clojars? Searched for it under "math" but could
not find it.
Found version 0.0.2 in mvnrepository.com but it is not the the version
0.0.3-SNAPSHOT mentioned in
https://github.com/clojure/math.combinatorics/blob/master/pom.xml
--
You received this message because you are sub
I don't see a reason for f(x) sugar, but if I had to do some complex
formulas I'd consider looking into a macro to enable infix math.
On Dec 27, 2011 2:44 PM, "daly" wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-26 at 10:09 -0800, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> > Recently, I found freedom of coding playing with Clojure with ov
Hi,
Given that Java and JavaScript have different exception semantics
(Java requiring AOT compiled class derived from java.lang.Exception/
java.lang.Throwable and such) I would like to ask the community if
anybody has come up with an approach to raise and catch exceptions
that work uniformly acros
On Mon, 2011-12-26 at 10:09 -0800, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> Recently, I found freedom of coding playing with Clojure with over 20
> years’ experience on other program languages, Previously, I had
> several trials of learning Lisp, but never got traction.
>
> However there are two syntax notations alwa
I don't see the point of your proposed syntactic change, and I just
can't imagine it gaining traction. In my view, there are more pressing
and important issues than trying to cater to the needs of people that
are scared by (f x) as opposed to f(x). Since programming languages
are artificial constru
Louis, obviously there's a problem here, the REPL should return
user=> (map first [[1] [2]])
(1 2)
As for my point about macros, it's not about the calls, it's about macro
processing before
spitting out the code that will be compiled, what would this return ?
user=> (defmacro mymac [func]
(let
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> The proposed syntax sugar does not break the existing code
clojure.core=> map(first [[1] [2]])
#
[1]
Ambrose
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email
I've pushed some updates to get it running with 1.3. take-ulong is
still broken because clojure.lang.BigInt doesn't seem to support bit-
and, but if you don't need that, give it a shot.
On Dec 27, 9:11 am, mrb_bk wrote:
> This looks great, take-ubyte is basically exactly what I needed. I'll
> le
The proposed syntax sugar does not break the existing code, it make it
easier to read and more fun for programmer from other language on the
ramping up stage. Even with mixed notation, I don’t see issue of
usability; the modified reader will handle it.
I sense the objection is that the f(x) notatio
Hi All,
This makes me feel quite embarrassed that autodoc hasn't seen a
release for non-core/contrib projects in so long. I apologize for
that. (Insert all the usual "life has been crazy... " caveats here.) I
hate seeing smart people having to recreate stuff just cause it's
taking me a long time t
This looks great, take-ubyte is basically exactly what I needed. I'll
let you know if it works when I try it out this afternoon -- not sure
what kind of work needs to be done to bring it up to date.
On Dec 27, 1:03 am, Geoff Salmon wrote:
> Hi, does the unpack function in this library do what yo
Hi,
On Tuesday, December 27, 2011 1:18:52 PM UTC+1, James Reeves wrote:
>
> It might be an idea to figure out some standard syntax we could use,
> like Markdown, that could be used for formatting docstrings.
>
IMHO the missing homoiconicity of docstrings in all flavors of Lisp that I
worked with
Hello,
Is it in your roadmap to provide links to source code of the functions ?
I know this is a border line feature between codox/autodoc and marginalia,
but it could be proven useful, even for API documentation (no API is
perfectly documented)
2011/12/26 James Reeves
> Hi folks,
>
> In order
On 26 December 2011 21:23, Gert Verhoog wrote:
> Question: One of my ns docstrings is a fair amount of text which is rendered
> as a really long line (because codox puts it inside a ...
> element). How would you deal with longer documentation strings? Would I need
> to insert manual line breaks
On 12/26/2011 07:09 PM, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
With some experiments, I found the code is
more readable for me to use f(x) notation for function call, and (op
x) for operator.
Operator? It's all function calls!
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
39 matches
Mail list logo
