On Apr 4, 2013 6:54 AM, "Jim - FooBar();" wrote:
>
> Thanks John,
>
> I came up with this, which uses destructuring quite heavily and might
slow things down...
>
> (reduce (fn [s [t1 t2 w3 v]] (assoc-in s [t1 t2 w3] (/ (count v) all))) {}
> (for [[k1 v1] ems [k2 v2] v1 [k3 v3] v2] [k1 k2 k3 v3]))
Thanks John,
I came up with this, which uses destructuring quite heavily and might
slow things down...
(reduce (fn [s [t1 t2 w3 v]] (assoc-in s [t1 t2 w3] (/ (count v) all))) {}
(for [[k1 v1] ems [k2 v2] v1 [k3 v3] v2] [k1 k2 k3 v3]))
is this what you meant?
Jim
On 03/04/13 19:54, John D.
Destructure the map entry.
(for [[k vs] some-map, v vs] v) or whatever.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I 've recently come across this idiom (instead of nested reduces - from
> Christophe's blog post of course!)
>
> (reduce f init (for [x xs, y x, z y] z)) ;;
Hi all,
I 've recently come across this idiom (instead of nested reduces - from
Christophe's blog post of course!)
(reducef init (for[x xs, y x, z y] z)) ;;it took me a while to realise
how cool this is :)
I'm trying to do the same for reduce-kv (for nested maps) but doesn't quite
