It is a matter of personal style.
Note that there is a max function.
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:53:23 PM UTC+2, Herwig Hochleitner wrote:
>
> Yep, I meant the thing, `vector` is doing. Thanks!
>
> 2015-08-13 13:36 GMT+02:00 Amith George >
> :
>
>> Maybe you meant to use `vector` instead of
Yep, I meant the thing, `vector` is doing. Thanks!
2015-08-13 13:36 GMT+02:00 Amith George :
> Maybe you meant to use `vector` instead of `vec`? `vec` doesn't accept
> variable args. Hence my original question.
>
> On Thursday, 13 August 2015 16:24:43 UTC+5:30, Herwig Hochleitner wrote:
>>
>> 201
Maybe you meant to use `vector` instead of `vec`? `vec` doesn't accept
variable args. Hence my original question.
On Thursday, 13 August 2015 16:24:43 UTC+5:30, Herwig Hochleitner wrote:
>
> 2015-08-13 11:13 GMT+02:00 Amith George >
> :
>
>>
>> Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? F
Hi,
I originally interpreted Erik's reply to mean -> Instead of `#(last (sort
%&))` do `#((comp last sort) %&)`. This works without any issue.
Herwig's suggestion was about replacing the entire anonymous function with
`(comp last sort vec)`. The example you gave `((comp last sort) 3 2 1)`,
ev
2015-08-13 11:13 GMT+02:00 Amith George :
>
> Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand,
> we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more.
>
>
What Tassilo said.
Also, it's not nessecary to use `vec`, but you need a function that creates
a
Amith George writes:
>> That's not the same function as #(last (sort %&))
>> The equivalent would be (comp last sort vec)
>
> Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I
> understand, we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a
> seq, nothing more.
With ((comp las
Hi,
That's not the same function as #(last (sort %&))
> The equivalent would be (comp last sort vec)
Could you please explain why is the `vec` needed? From what I understand,
we are expected to treat the variadic args argument as a seq, nothing more.
On Thursday, 13 August 2015 14:02:38 UT
2015-08-13 10:08 GMT+02:00 Eric Le Goff :
> I would be curious to know if there are difference (in terms of
> performance / elegance ) between those 2 ways of expressing functions
>
> E.g
>
> *(fn [& x] (-> x sort last))*
>
> versus
>
> *#(last (sort %&))*
>
> Both are supposedly equivalent, but w
(comp last sort)
Erik.
--
i farta
> Den 13. aug. 2015 kl. 10.08 skrev Eric Le Goff :
>
> I would be curious to know if there are difference (in terms of performance /
> elegance ) between those 2 ways of expressing functions
>
> E.g
>
> (fn [& x] (-> x sort last))
>
> versus
>
> #(last (
I would be curious to know if there are difference (in terms of performance
/ elegance ) between those 2 ways of expressing functions
E.g
*(fn [& x] (-> x sort last))*
versus
*#(last (sort %&))*
Both are supposedly equivalent, but would you recommend one preferred
syntax , or this just a matte
On Oct 7, 12:32 am, "Stephen C. Gilardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Matthew D. Swank wrote:
...
> Here's a similar question and answer from the list archive that
> includes a cool tip for seeing the effect of reader macros:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:58
On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Matthew D. Swank wrote:
>
> Typing #(nil) at a repl gives me:
>
> java.lang.NullPointerException (NO_SOURCE_FILE:1)
> [Thrown class clojure.lang.Compiler$CompilerException]
> [...]
> However, (fn [] nil) is fine.
>
> Shouldn't they be equivalent?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
Her
Typing #(nil) at a repl gives me:
java.lang.NullPointerException (NO_SOURCE_FILE:1)
[Thrown class clojure.lang.Compiler$CompilerException]
Restarts:
0: [ABORT] Return to SLIME's top level.
1: [CAUSE] Throw cause of this exception
Backtrace:
0: clojure.lang.Compiler.analyzeSeq(Compiler.ja
13 matches
Mail list logo
