There are two different concerns in what people refer to as "pattern
matching": binding and flow-control. Destructuring only addresses binding.
Pattern matching emphasizes flow control, and some binding features
typically come along for free with whatever syntax it uses. (But you
On 27 Jan 2017, at 07:04, Didier wrote:
> Some languages have pattern matching, and Clojure is said to not have it
> (without a library), but it does have destructuring.
>
> It seems to me that destructuring is the same as pattern matching, except
> that it can only be used
Some languages have pattern matching, and Clojure is said to not have it
(without a library), but it does have destructuring.
It seems to me that destructuring is the same as pattern matching, except that
it can only be used inside function arguments, where as pattern matching can
also be used
That's described here:
https://github.com/clojure/core.match/wiki/Basic-usage#sequential-types
Use: [([1] :seq)]
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:37:37 PM UTC+2, Russell Wallace wrote:
>
> How do you do pattern matching on lists in Clojure? I've tried using
> core.match but th
How do you do pattern matching on lists in Clojure? I've tried using
core.match but the examples all deal with vectors, and trying to specify a
list in the apparently obvious ways gets an error message about invalid
list syntax.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed t
To add to the list, I wrote `defpatterned` for /Functional Programming for the Object-Oriented Programmer/. https://github.com/marick/patterned There are probably many others.
Moving pattern matching closer to `clojure.core` might be a good thing for a roadmap. I'm pretty excited by pa
Defm does this too though I've never got round to fully finishing it.
(defm file-or-string-fn []
([File] (println "It's a file"))
([s :- String] (println "It's a string " s))
(["magic"] (println "It's magic"))
([_] (println "It's a " (type _1
--
You received this message because you
Check out defun. I believe it does exactly what you want. Admittedly I'm not
aware of its current state. https://github.com/killme2008/defun
--
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
It's not pattern matching, but would replacing the apply with a reduce
achieve the same result?
I'm not in a position to test this right now, but I believe (reduce f init
()) returns init without invoking f, and (conj x a b c) is equivalent to
(reduce conj x [a b c]), so replacing
Clojure's destructuring is not the same thing as the "pattern matching"
found in some other functional languages. Pattern matching can do various
conditional checks, destructuring cannot. Clojure's "defn" supports
destructuring in the argument list.
Full pa
Sean Johnson has a great video about pattern matching, where he suggests
that any function that starts with a conditional should have the
conditional removed and the conditional logic implemented as
pattern-matching and restructuring in the signature of the function. But
after some
>
>
> For instance, which one of these to you consider to be the best
> representation of a event to set the expiry time:
>
>[:cache/expire #inst "2015-09-08T12:00:00Z"]
>
>{:type :cache/expire, :value #inst "2015-09-08T12:00:00Z"}
>
>#cache.Expire [#inst "2015-09-08T12:00:00Z"]
>
>
On 8 September 2015 at 11:38, Thomas Heller wrote:
>
> If you look at these implementations
>
> (def OneOff [(s/one s/Str 'name) (s/one s/Str 'email)])
>
> (s/defrecord OneOff
> [name :- s/Str
> email :- s/Str])
>
> (defrecord OneOff [name email])
>
> All of them do more or less the same
I don't use schema/core.typed much in my actual projects, while I have done
many attempts it just never worked out. I like the idea and should
definitely use them more but it is just too much of a moving system and not
stable enough yet (eg. didn't even know s/either is deprecated).
If you look at
Thanks for your benchmark.
I will upgrade all the dependencies and release 0.2.0
We are using defun with instparse in a DSL implementation, the performance
is acceptable, but the code is much more readable.
2015-09-06 4:33 GMT+08:00 Rob Lally :
> Out of interest, I ran the benchmarks as is,
>> I probably wouldn't use protocols since I doubt there is a function
signature that is exactly identical for all branches. Each branch probably
needs access to different parts of your system (eg. database) and always
passing everything to everything is not ideal.
>> Multi-Method is great if y
On 7 September 2015 at 15:49, Timothy Baldridge
wrote:
>
> Types are good even in dynamic languages, we should use the more. As
> mentioned by Thomas, records are the idiomatic way to store typed
> information in Clojure.
>
I don't think that's true. Or rather, I think it depends on what you mean
>
>
> (def Recipient
>> (s/either PlaceHolder
>> Existing
>> OneOff))
>>
>
> This looks interesting. Where would I actually use this? I mean, if I have
> created three records, I may as well implement multi methods or protocols,
> right? Even if I don't do those, I will
>> Should be expressed as:
>> (swap! :atom a, :function inc)
One of Rich's talks on simplicity actually addresses that. He states that
the above method (with keyword arguments) is actually simpler, but that
this isn't exactly easy to program.
And yes, I would take this same position about positio
>
> Looking at the "(defn register [...])" example. Where is the problem with
> the first solution? It doesn't have the bugs the other implementations have
> and is extremely simple to reason about? The other two solutions do the
> exact same thing just slower with absolutely no gain. If you ne
On 7 September 2015 at 13:59, James Reeves wrote:
> On 6 September 2015 at 15:38, Timothy Baldridge
> wrote:
>>
>> As far as performance goes, this is normally the sort of thing that gets
>> baked into an app at a pretty low level, that's why I suggest it should be
>> as fast as possible. If you
On 6 September 2015 at 09:57, Amith George wrote:
>
> Could you elaborate on what you mean by variants being like a key value
> pair?
>
I mean that tags are usually used to describe what the data *is*, whereas
keys are usually used to describe what the data is for. For instance, one
might have a
On 6 September 2015 at 15:38, Timothy Baldridge
wrote:
> >> I'm not sure why you think that it "complicates the code, and makes it
> harder to understand".
>
> Alright, I'll use the phrase: using vectors as variants complects order
> with data. If you hand me a vector that says [:name "tim"] I ha
FWIW before I came to Clojure I did a lot of Erlang and in the beginning I
was at the exact same spot wanting to use pattern matching everywhere
because it is so damn cool. Same goes for tagged literals.
After a little while I realized that it is just not the way to do it in
Clojure and
lue hashmap. If core.match was able
to easily pattern match over a record as well as easily destructure the
values in the value hashmap, we would use it. From what I have seen of
core.match, it is nowhere near as easy/clean as pattern matching a vector.
>> As far as performance goes, this is nor
>> I'm not sure why you think that it "complicates the code, and makes it
harder to understand".
Alright, I'll use the phrase: using vectors as variants complects order
with data. If you hand me a vector that says [:name "tim"] I have to know
that "the first thing in this vector is the name of the
On 6 September 2015 at 14:41, Timothy Baldridge
wrote:
> >> "Variants fulfil the same purpose as key/value pairs in a map. The key
> denotes a context-sensitive purpose for the data, rather than its type."
>
> Then use a key/value type. That's my problem with this approach, it
> abuses a collecti
>> "Variants fulfil the same purpose as key/value pairs in a map. The key
denotes a context-sensitive purpose for the data, rather than its type."
Then use a key/value type. That's my problem with this approach, it abuses
a collection type and therefore creates confusion as to the type of data is
TIL that "tagged literals" have an existing meaning in clojure. In my mind,
the terms "tagged vector" and "tagged literal" were interchangeable. From a
quick Google search there doesn't seem to be an existing meaning for
"tagged vector". I think we can agree that it a representation of variants
On 6 September 2015 at 02:31, Timothy Baldridge
wrote:
> >> Thanks, it helps to know using a tagged vector is a real pattern :)
>
> I don't know that it's a "real pattern". If I saw code like this in
> production I would probably raise quite a stink about it during code
> reviews. It's a cute hac
s/notify mailer email activate-subject activate-text)
(register [:ok {:res (auth/authenticate email)}]))
(= status :ok) (response/ok (:res args))
(= status :err) (response/bad-request {:errors [{:message (:res args
)}]}))))
With no pattern matching I had to wrap the actual arg
ould return an union type Result, with cases Success and Error.
And it gels very nicely with pattern matching.
In that light, I can acknowledge tagged vectors as a real pattern. Creating
records for all these cases wouldn't be worth it in my opinion. Infact one
would usually just retu
>> Thanks, it helps to know using a tagged vector is a real pattern :)
I don't know that it's a "real pattern". If I saw code like this in
production I would probably raise quite a stink about it during code
reviews. It's a cute hack, but it is also an abuse of a data structure. Now
when I see [:f
>
> * Elixir and the BEAM VM are awesome at many things, but I suspect (from
> experience not evidence) that the defun version is still faster than the
> elixir version.
In Clojure, the defun version is not the default or idiomatic way to write
functions. I kind of expected it to be slower. M
Thanks, it helps to know using a tagged vector is a real pattern :) Gives
the confidence to explore this further for my own code.
On Saturday, 5 September 2015 22:37:33 UTC+5:30, Gary Verhaegen wrote:
>
> It won't really help for the library/ecosystem problem, but for your own
> code I'd recomm
Out of interest, I ran the benchmarks as is, and got more or less the same
results - 15x. Then I tried upgrading the defun dependencies - clojure,
core.match and tools.macro - all of which have newer versions, and then running
the benchmarks without leiningen’s jvm-opts and in a trampolined repl
It won't really help for the library/ecosystem problem, but for your own
code I'd recommend watching Jeanine Atkinson's Conj talk from last year:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQkIWWTygio
On Saturday, 5 September 2015, Amith George wrote:
> Nice. Hadn't heard of it before. It looks interesting.
Nice. Hadn't heard of it before. It looks interesting. The criterium
benchmark is kinda disappointing though. The pattern matched function took
nearly 15x the time of the normal function.
Performance aside, in Elixir, there seems to be an established convention
for creating the function argumen
You might want to take a look at defun: https://github.com/killme2008/defun
- James
On 5 September 2015 at 09:24, Amith George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just read a blog post [1] talking about Elixir pattern matching. I was
> thoroughly impressed with the way its handled in Elixir. I am
Hi,
I just read a blog post [1] talking about Elixir pattern matching. I was
thoroughly impressed with the way its handled in Elixir. I am posting this
here cuz I got rather excited and wanted to discuss this with you all.
My experience with pattern matching is limited to the basics of F# and
find
that half of their pitch was on the basis of security and they attributed a
lot of their success in that area to pattern matching:
Using Scala's built-in pattern matching, we match an incoming request,
> extract the third part of the path and get the User that corresponds to
>
.
>>
>> Back in the day when lisps had only parenthesized collection types, there
>> were lisp libraries
>> (whose names I've long since forgotten) that would allow pattern matching
>> of s-expressions,
>> so that you could describe a pattern, match it to so
certain capability in clojure
> libraries.
>
> Back in the day when lisps had only parenthesized collection types, there
> were lisp libraries
> (whose names I've long since forgotten) that would allow pattern matching
> of s-expressions,
> so that you could describe a
> Back in the day when lisps had only parenthesized collection types, there
> were lisp libraries
> (whose names I've long since forgotten) that would allow pattern matching
> of s-expressions,
> so that you could describe a pattern, match it to some tree, pick up
&g
s in without
> trying to define what an s-expression is.
>
> The question came up as I was looking for a certain capability in clojure
> libraries.
>
> Back in the day when lisps had only parenthesized collection types, there
> were lisp libraries
> (whose names I've long
question came up as I was looking for a certain capability in clojure
libraries.
Back in the day when lisps had only parenthesized collection types, there
were lisp libraries
(whose names I've long since forgotten) that would allow pattern matching
of s-expressions,
so that you could descr
com/clojure/core.match
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Vladimir Tsichevski
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi gurus.
>>> >
>>> > Is it possible in Clojure to use pattern matching, like I can with
>>> Bigloo
>>> > sch
; Vladimir
>
> On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:10:59 AM UTC+4, Moritz Ulrich wrote:
>>
>> Use core.match: https://github.com/clojure/core.match
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Vladimir Tsichevski
>> wrote:
>> > Hi gurus.
>> >
>
PM, Vladimir Tsichevski
> > wrote:
> > Hi gurus.
> >
> > Is it possible in Clojure to use pattern matching, like I can with
> Bigloo
> > scheme, for example:
> >
> > (match-case '(a b a)
> > ((?x ?x) 'foo)
> > ((?x ?-
Use core.match: https://github.com/clojure/core.match
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Vladimir Tsichevski
wrote:
> Hi gurus.
>
> Is it possible in Clojure to use pattern matching, like I can with Bigloo
> scheme, for example:
>
> (match-case '(a b a)
> ((?x ?x)
Hi gurus.
Is it possible in Clojure to use pattern matching, like I can with Bigloo
scheme, for example:
(match-case '(a b a)
((?x ?x) 'foo)
((?x ?- ?x) 'bar))
Regards,
Vladimir
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure&quo
Thx, this is exactly what I need.
--
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 - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe fr
l Jaaka
>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> Pattern matching is fine for sequence or vector destruction.
>>> Is is possible to destruct map and make pattern machting?
>>> For example I would like to make constraint for to some query service.
>>> It would be done as ma
it's better to use https://github.com/clojure/core.match
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ben Smith-Mannschott
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:20, Michael Jaaka
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>> Pattern matching is fine for sequence or vector destruction.
>> Is is poss
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:20, Michael Jaaka
wrote:
> Hi!
> Pattern matching is fine for sequence or vector destruction.
> Is is possible to destruct map and make pattern machting?
> For example I would like to make constraint for to some query service.
> It would be done as
Hi!
Pattern matching is fine for sequence or vector destruction.
Is is possible to destruct map and make pattern machting?
For example I would like to make constraint for to some query service.
It would be done as map for example: { :name "Tom" :surname "Jakarta"
:bi
> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Additionally to core.match there is also matchure [1] which comes with
>> > > a defn-match that can be used like this:
>> >
>> > > (defn-
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > Additionally to core.match there is also matchure [1] which comes with
> >> > > a defn-match that can be used like this:
>
> >> > > (defn-match choose
> >> > > ([_ 0] 1)
> >> > > ([
chr.pohlm...@googlemail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Additionally to core.match there is also matchure [1] which comes with
>> > > a defn-match that can be used like this:
>&
Hi Michael
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Michael Jaaka wrote:
> Btw. I'm using [match "0.2.0-SNAPSHOT"] and Clojure 1.3 but this
> import instruction
>
> (use '[match.core :only [match]])
>
> from official website of match library doesn't work, only (use
> '[clojure.core.match.core :only [ma
e.match there is also matchure [1] which comes with
> > > a defn-match that can be used like this:
> >
> > > (defn-match choose
> > > ([_ 0] 1)
> > > ([0 _] 0)
> > > ([?n ?k] (+ (choose (dec n) (dec k)) (choose (dec n) k
> >
>
tch that can be used like this:
>
> > > (defn-match choose
> > > ([_ 0] 1)
> > > ([0 _] 0)
> > > ([?n ?k] (+ (choose (dec n) (dec k)) (choose (dec n) k
>
> > > This makes defining functions fairly close to what you're used from
> &
functions fairly close to what you're used from
> Haskell.
>
> > [1]https://github.com/dcolthorp/matchure
>
> > Christian
>
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Michael Jaaka
> > wrote:
> >> Hi!
>
> >> Is there any way to define functi
ps://github.com/dcolthorp/matchure
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Michael Jaaka
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Is there any way to define function with pattern matching in function
>> signature as it is in haskell?
>>
>> Bye!
&g
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:06 PM, David Nolen wrote:
> In core.logic you do have matche, which is conceptually similar.
Right, I knew about `matche` and that added to all the confusion.
Regards,
BG
--
Baishampayan Ghose
b.ghose at gmail.com
--
You received this message because you are subscri
In core.logic you do have matche, which is conceptually similar.
David
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
> wrote:
> > It's part of core.match.
> > clojure.core.match.core/match
> > https://github.com/clojure/c
In this exchange I've written core.logic when I meant core.match about 4
times xD
Ambrose
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
> wrote:
> > It's part of core.match.
> > clojure.core.match.core/match
> > https://g
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
wrote:
> It's part of core.match.
> clojure.core.match.core/match
> https://github.com/clojure/core.match
Sorry Ambrose, I was so stupid, I was looking at core.logic :-)
Regards,
BG
--
Baishampayan Ghose
b.ghose at gmail.com
--
You r
It's part of core.match.
clojure.core.match.core/match
https://github.com/clojure/core.match
Thanks,
Ambrose
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
> wrote:
> > append is missing a closing paren.
> > It should wo
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
wrote:
> append is missing a closing paren.
> It should work.
Where does `match` come from? I couldn't find it anywhere.
Regards,
BG
--
Baishampayan Ghose
b.ghose at gmail.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed t
append is missing a closing paren.
It should work.
Ambrose
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
> wrote:
> > (defn append [a b]
> > (match [a b]
> > [[] _] b
> > [[x & as] _] (append as (cons x b)))
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
wrote:
> (defn append [a b]
> (match [a b]
> [[] _] b
> [[x & as] _] (append as (cons x b)))
> (defn or [b1 b2]
> (match [b1 b2]
> [true _] true
> [_ true] true
> :else false))
Does the
hure
>
> Christian
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Michael Jaaka
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Is there any way to define function with pattern matching in function
> > signature as it is in haskell?
> >
> > Bye!
> >
> > --
&
https://github.com/clojure/core.match
>
> Thanks,
> Ambrose
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Michael Jaaka <
> michael.ja...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Is there any way to define function with pattern matching in function
>> sig
.
[1] https://github.com/dcolthorp/matchure
Christian
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Michael Jaaka
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is there any way to define function with pattern matching in function
> signature as it is in haskell?
>
> Bye!
>
> --
> You received this message b
ore.match
Thanks,
Ambrose
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Michael Jaaka wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is there any way to define function with pattern matching in function
> signature as it is in haskell?
>
> Bye!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to
Hi!
Is there any way to define function with pattern matching in function
signature as it is in haskell?
Bye!
--
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 post
Millare wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > For pattern matching code size is a one time cost. For predicate
> > dispatch,
> > > that's a lot of code to generated, since every new predicate case will
> > > produce an entirely new tree. But perhaps people won&#x
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Brent Millare wrote:
> > For pattern matching code size is a one time cost. For predicate
> dispatch,
> > that's a lot of code to generated, since every new predicate case will
> > produce an entirely new tree. But perhaps people wo
Actually to simply further, instead of wrapping the old DAG tree, it
simply replaces the DAG tree with the compilation step. The
compilation step then makes the new DAG tree and calls it.
On Aug 22, 3:07 pm, Brent Millare wrote:
> > For pattern matching code size is a one time cos
> For pattern matching code size is a one time cost. For predicate dispatch,
> that's a lot of code to generated, since every new predicate case will
> produce an entirely new tree. But perhaps people won't care that much. Only
> time and experience reports will tell.
If you
rate.
> Fortunately Maranget did some measurements with real world patterns - code
> size for decision trees built with good heuristics were never more than
> 1.5-2X the size of their backtracking counterparts.
>
> For pattern matching code size is a one time cost. For predicate dispa
ode
size for decision trees built with good heuristics were never more than
1.5-2X the size of their backtracking counterparts.
For pattern matching code size is a one time cost. For predicate dispatch,
that's a lot of code to generated, since every new predicate case will
produce an entirely
I have a question about the presentation.
You mention that you can't achieve the same dispatching performance in
the open case compared to the closed space.
Lets ignore the namespace issue (maybe by restricting ourselves to
only one namespace).
Also lets assume the predicate ordering is solved.
Excellent talk David. This is hitting a programming sweet spot that I've
wanted for a while. I haven't tried prolog, standard ml, haskell, etc. But
jquery was the first tool that clued me into a kind of pattern matching and
predicate dispatch:
$( ".classA .classB#containingId
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Ken Wesson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> > Eh, what exactly does slideshare provide over a PDF put on some server
> somewhere?
>
> Apparently, the ability to annoy the hell out of whoever you try to
> share it with.
You c
Awesome talk - thanks!
I particularly enjoyed the sign behind you that says "Don't Panic!" - it helped
keep me calm during the hairily complex parts :-)
I really look forward to seeing where you go with this stuff…
Sam
---
http://sam.aaron.name
On 18 Aug 2011, at 21:10, David Nolen wrote:
>
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer wrote:
> Eh, what exactly does slideshare provide over a PDF put on some server
> somewhere?
Apparently, the ability to annoy the hell out of whoever you try to
share it with.
--
Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?!
Master: Yo
Hi,
Am 18.08.2011 um 22:27 schrieb Laurent PETIT:
> 2011/8/18 David Nolen
> SlideShare link, http://www.slideshare.net/DavidNolen/patterns-8907600
>
> Arrrgh, and now slideshare wants me to authenticate via FB or a slideshare
> account if I want to download the slides, again.
>
> Ok, I've alr
2011/8/18 David Nolen
> SlideShare link, http://www.slideshare.net/DavidNolen/patterns-8907600
Arrrgh, and now slideshare wants me to authenticate via FB or a slideshare
account if I want to download the slides, again.
Ok, I've already got a slideshare account, so I'll try to remember the
pass
2011/8/18 Baishampayan Ghose
> > I don't have a Facebook account (and don't want to create one), neither
> have
> > or want to create a scribd account. Could it be possible to have the
> slides
> > available for download without having to authenticate (e.g. slideshare) ?
>
> Slides are on Scribd
Thanks David, I can't wait reading them !
Cheers,
--
Laurent
2011/8/18 David Nolen
> SlideShare link, http://www.slideshare.net/DavidNolen/patterns-8907600
>
> David
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Laurent PETIT wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I don't have a Facebook account (and don't want t
SlideShare link, http://www.slideshare.net/DavidNolen/patterns-8907600
David
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I don't have a Facebook account (and don't want to create one), neither
> have or want to create a scribd account. Could it be possible to have the
> sl
> I don't have a Facebook account (and don't want to create one), neither have
> or want to create a scribd account. Could it be possible to have the slides
> available for download without having to authenticate (e.g. slideshare) ?
Slides are on Scribd as well - http://www.scribd.com/doc/62571669
Hello,
I don't have a Facebook account (and don't want to create one), neither have
or want to create a scribd account. Could it be possible to have the slides
available for download without having to authenticate (e.g. slideshare) ?
2011/8/18 David Nolen
> In case you didn't see this elsewhere
In case you didn't see this elsewhere:
http://vimeo.com/27860102
David
--
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 - please be patient w
I realized that supporting pattern matching on Java classes is pretty
trivial - 15 lines code needed to be changed. I think this a good example of
how powerful protocol really are:
https://gist.github.com/1141252
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Hi James,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:43 PM, James Sofra wrote:
>
> Just to clarify, you can extend the matching to new types but the match is
> 'closed' in the sense that unlike mutimethods you can't add additional
> cases? Is that correct?
>
>
For the 0.1 release, that is correct.
In future rele
Hi David,
Looks really neat!
Just to clarify, you can extend the matching to new types but the match is
'closed' in the sense that unlike mutimethods you can't add additional
cases? Is that correct?
Hope that makes sense,
James Sofra
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
This is great stuff: thank you! I can totally see this being the kind
of thing like destructuring, where once you've used it you won't want
to go back :)
--
Peter
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to cl
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
