goes.
Thanks!
Yaron
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Sean Corfield
> wrote:
> > Add the following to your ~/.lein/user.clj:
>
> > ;; ~/.lein/user.clj
> > (if (>= (.compareTo (clojure-version) &quo
at the REPL in SWANK works in general. I can evaluate my
functions and they work.
So how do I get clojure.repl to load in SWANK?
Thanks,
Yaron
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to cloj
I don't think that dataflow works quite right in my case because, if I
understood Mr. Straszheim's posts correctly then dataflows can't have
cycles and I have cycles all over the place. Unfortunately this isn't
visible in the example I gave because I used Sell which doesn't have
cycles. Rent on the
it's no problem,
everything gets automatically regenerated.
You can see the whole program at
http://www.goland.org/simple-reverse-rent-or-sell.clj
So is this the way you would approach this problem in Clojure?
Thanks,
Yaron
On Feb 19, 10:15 pm, Richard Newman wrote:
> >
un-calculator
[args]
(let [derived-args (derived-args args)]
(- (rent derived-args) (sell derived-args
I have to think that's preferable to submitting 30+ arguments to rent
and sell.
Or were you suggesting a different approach?
> Looking good!
>
> -R
Mega thank
seudo-constructor {:supplied-1 1
> :supplied-2 2})]
> (println ((:public-method-1 obj) "x" "y" "z"))
> (println ((:public-method-2 obj) "x" "y")))
>
> --jw
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:24 AM
ading in the 'right' direction? I realize
you can't properly judge it until I'm done but I wanted to find out if
I was roughly heading in the right direction.
Thanks
Yaron
On Feb 17, 10:36 pm, Richard Newman wrote:
> > I don't expect anyone
Way back when I was a wee lad I had been taught that a thunk is any
function that takes no arguments. My definition for my derived values
never took any arguments because they exclusively relied on global
variables.
For example:
(defn months_actively_renting
"The number of months during t
ooking like what I'm used to from my OO days. Put
another way, I speak Clojure with a really thick OO accent and I'd
like to learn better how to speak it like a native. :)
Yaron
On Feb 17, 11:53 am, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2010/2/17Yaron:
>
>
>
> &
els to two levels. It would be
> pretty easy to build a parallel-binding macro that did this for you.
>
> hth,
>
> Tom
>
> On Feb 17, 10:09 am,Yaron wrote:
>
> > I did but it requires two levels of macro and that made me nervous.
> > The problem is derived
The reason for typing so much is maintainability. I'll have to come
back to this code again and again over a period of years and there's
no chance in heck I'll remember anything I did before. So I've learned
that using clearer variable names, even with a little extra typing, is
a price worth paying
I think I see what you're saying. But honestly my goal isn't to
replicate the OO experience. My goal is to replicate how easy OO made
this specific scenario. In other words I want to use Clojure properly
and trying to paste an OO framework on Clojure has got to be a major
anti-pattern. I'm just try
bunch of thunks isn't the worst
thing in the world. But it is unfortunate from both a design and
performance perspective.
Yaron
On Feb 16, 11:07 pm, Richard Newman wrote:
> > It seems however that the consensus of the group based on what I've
> > said so far is to pass
bunch of thunks isn't the worst
thing in the world. But it is unfortunate from both a design and
performance perspective.
Yaron
On Feb 16, 11:07 pm, Richard Newman wrote:
> > It seems however that the consensus of the group based on what I've
> > said so far is to pass
ed
bindings. Which seems like a lot of work.
In other words:
(binding [*A* :A...]
(binding [B (+ *A* 1)...]
(binding [C (+ *B* 1)...]
etc.
And I can't use let (which does allow for internal visibility) because
then other functions I call will bind to the global value not the let
value
text. But it doesn't seem like this is the clojure way of handling
the problem. Where as many aspects of functional programming make a
ton of sense to me having to carry a map around everywhere doesn't
seem like an advantage. But I'm probably just missing something.
Yaron
ther are known at run time. Does Clojure have a way to express a
'late bound' constant or is the 'right' solution to pass around 19+
arguments to functions or passing around StructMaps or making
everything into thunks?
Thanks!
Yaron
On Feb 15, 1:33 pm, Richard Newm
rebound (once) that then have dependent values that need to be
recalculated when that rebinding happens?
Thanks,
Yaron
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@goo
18 matches
Mail list logo
