Am 30.12.2011 um 00:19 schrieb Softaddicts:
> I suggest the Klingon downward triangle Natural delimiter you said ? :)
And the irony that it is only used in latin transliteration…
Meikel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post t
Hi Timothy,
Thank you! I really appreciate your comments. I must admit there is still
much left to be done on clooj and I haven't had much time to work on it of
late. I thank everyone for their patience.
Cheers,
Arthur
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Grou
Why God like dmiller don't write such a book? It must be very interesting.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, dmiller wrote:
> The wiki on the github repo has some information about getting started
> and how to accomplish some interop that is special to CLR.
>
> https://github.com/richhickey/cloju
A few months back I released 1.0 of deep-freeze, a binary
serialization library for Clojure. Due to recent additions by Peter
Taoussanis I thought it would be about time to let some more people
know about this project, and bump the version number to 1.2
deep-freeze is a simple serialization librar
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Erlis Vidal wrote:
> Cedric, you have a really good point, I just realized it after reading your
> email. After sending the original email I saw what the error was, but what I
> still unable to know is how could I debug from Clooj, other than using
> println, any
Guys,
Thanks so much for all the answers, thanks for taking the time to give me
so many hints even when my email shows my Clojure ignorance.
Cedric, you have a really good point, I just realized it after reading your
email. After sending the original email I saw what the error was, but what
I sti
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Mark Engelberg
wrote:
> I'd also like to know whether Clooj has any debug or stacktracing
> capabilities. Also, can the Clooj repl control the print level of
> infinite lazy structures?
(set! *print-length* 20)
(set! *print-level* 20)
(.printStackTrace *e)
Hav
I'd also like to know whether Clooj has any debug or stacktracing
capabilities. Also, can the Clooj repl control the print level of
infinite lazy structures?
Thanks,
Mark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send e
I suggest the Klingon downward triangle Natural delimiter you said ? :)
http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/klingon.html
Luc
> Better yet we can say that function calls and forms always start with a
> symbol and end with punctuation or some natural delimiter. So we could
> write things l
For VS integration, there is the following plugin. I haven't used it
myself, so can't offer much help beyond this. Good luck!
http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/fb895809-2ae0-48aa-8a96-3c0d5b8e1fdc/
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:17:28 AM UTC-8, Erlis Vidal wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Tha
Just add (println min) before if-let and you will see what is happening.
Hubert.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Erlis Vidal wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've using Clooj and following the labrepl but I'm hitting a wall right now.
> How can I debug here?
>
> This the code I want to debug
>
> (defn mi
2011/12/29 Erlis Vidal
> Hi guys,
>
> I've using Clooj and following the labrepl but I'm hitting a wall right
> now. How can I debug here?
>
> This the code I want to debug
>
> (defn min-1 [x & more]
> (loop [min x
> more (seq more)]
> (if-let [x (first more)]
> (recur (if (<
you are invoking the function in the wrong way
what you really want to do is this:
user> (min-1 2 1 3)
1
2011/12/29 Erlis Vidal
> Hi guys,
>
> I've using Clooj and following the labrepl but I'm hitting a wall right
> now. How can I debug here?
>
> This the code I want to debug
>
> (defn min-1
Hi guys,
I've using Clooj and following the labrepl but I'm hitting a wall right
now. How can I debug here?
This the code I want to debug
(defn min-1 [x & more]
(loop [min x
more (seq more)]
(if-let [x (first more)]
(recur (if (< x min) x min) (next more))
min)))
This
Better yet we can say that function calls and forms always start with a
symbol and end with punctuation or some natural delimiter. So we could
write things like:
defn f [x]
println "hi"!
42;
.
doseq [e range 10 20]
f e;
.
map fn [x] Math/pow x 2.0, range 10.
if even 3?
:even
:odd.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:27 AM, vitalyper wrote:
> My question is why do we have BOTH :arglists metadata and usual fn
> args destructuring?
As Meikel surmised, it's to improve the docstring (shown by the doc
function). We (the CongoMongo team) have not been terribly consistent
about it tho' :(
Hi,
Am 29.12.2011 um 20:27 schrieb vitalyper:
> My question is why do we have BOTH :arglists metadata and usual fn
> args destructuring?
Probably to make things a bit clearer in the docstring. The usual destructuring
is powerful but rather unreadable for a quick glance at the reference. Similar
Hi!
Thanks for the link. I really appreciate it.
It looks like the CLR project is really in it first stage. Is someone
working on the tools? Any plans to integrate it with VS?
thanks! and thanks for the CLR version!
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Benny Tsai wrote:
> Hi Erlis,
>
> This is th
Hi Erlis,
This is the most recent blog entry I've found w.r.t. getting up and running
with Clojure CLR:
http://www.myclojureadventure.com/2011/10/getting-started-with-clojure-clr.html
What I really like about this particular blog is that the author has also
written follow-up articles (in Nov.
Came across the following in one of the clojure libs (congomongo to be
exact)
https://github.com/aboekhoff/congomongo/blob/master/src/somnium/congomongo.clj:464
(defn command
"Executes a database command."
{:arglists '([cmd {:options nil :from :clojure :to :clojure}])}
[cmd & {:keys [options
One common problem when developing closed-source Clojure applications is
finding a good place to store private dependencies. Up until now the
recommended method was to run your own Archiva or Nexus server, which
involves more moving parts than most people rightly want to bother with.
Last week I
do you mean syntax sugar = macro ?
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:48 PM, James Reeves wrote:
> On 29 December 2011 16:35, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> > Agree on looking from the angle of data structure and their internal
> > presentation. But conceptually, [] and {} are just syntax sugars:
> > [x y] -> (v
On 29 December 2011 16:35, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> Agree on looking from the angle of data structure and their internal
> presentation. But conceptually, [] and {} are just syntax sugars:
> [x y] -> (vector x y)
> {x y} -> (hash-map x y)
> #{x y} -> (hash-set x y)
Well, no, not really.
It's true
Why not create a klingon version ?
> How about using a and b instead of ( ) so we could have faab which would be
> the equivalent of (f a) so it would rule out symbolnames with an a in any
> place but the first it, also we could go for less used characters as I don't
> know ¥ and µ for exampl
I think I fixed the take-ulong problem, and I've pushed 0.2.0 to
clojars. Let me know if you have any problems with it.
- Geoff
On Dec 27, 12:47 pm, Geoff Salmon wrote:
> 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
How about using a and b instead of ( ) so we could have faab which would be the
equivalent of (f a) so it would rule out symbolnames with an a in any place but
the first it, also we could go for less used characters as I don't know ¥ and µ
for example so that would not be half as fun I think.
--
The thing about lisps, though, is that code and data are represented
with the same structure. Adding sugar that makes them appear to be
different things would not help anyone, especially the beginner. It
will make grasping macros, among other things, much more difficult
down the road. Getting us
Agree on looking from the angle of data structure and their internal
presentation. But conceptually, [] and {} are just syntax sugars:
[x y] -> (vector x y)
{x y} -> (hash-map x y)
#{x y} -> (hash-set x y)
The 2 element structures are all become 3 element lists.
Louis
On Dec 29, 7:03 am, Ja
Sorry if this has already been addressed...
I can understand both Ron's pain and the reasoning why it's not possible to
have Haskell style currying; however, I wonder if there's a compromise
possible.
Right now, we:
(map #(+ 3 %) [1 2 3] or (map (partial + 3) [1 2 3])
The (partial + 3) is a b
On 29 December 2011 04:49, Louis Yu Lu wrote:
> Instead of using overloaded (), may be f[x] will cause less trouble,
> and more inline with clojure's syntax as [ ] already being used for
> defining the arguments of the function.
I think you need to look at this from a slightly different angle.
I
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
>>> I just pushed out version 1.3.4 of Swank Clojure.
>>
>> Does it work with Clojure 1.2? What exclusions do I need for that in
>> my project.clj?
>
> I'm not aware of any issues with
31 matches
Mail list logo
