On 21 April 2010 22:58, Kevin Livingston
wrote:
> Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback.
Thank you for the insightful response!
I've posted the current state of my code -- which uses clojure.zip and
clojure.walk, among other things -- here:
http://gist.github.com/374764
> intention
Kevin Livingston writes:
>> Not at all. next is basically #(seq (rest %)); you might want to use
>> it when the extra bit of strictness is beneficial to your code and you
>> shouldn't use it when it isn't.
>
> oh, ok. I saw some posts on using the new super-lazy lists / code and
> it implied tha
Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback.
> I can't think of a direct equivalent now, but it's straightforward
> enough to supply your own equivalent, like my compound? function
> (basically #(and (seq? %) (seq %))). This won't work on arrays and
> other things which seq can operate upon,
On 19 April 2010 20:34, Kevin Livingston
wrote:
> I ported the unifier posted by Norvig in Common Lisp to Clojure...
Cool! Before I comment on a few specific points you make / questions
you ask, here are the results of a few minutes I spent playing with /
rewriting your code:
http://gist.github.
I ported the unifier posted by Norvig in Common Lisp to Clojure...
original lisp here: http://norvig.com/paip/unify.lisp
from the paip directory it also uses code in patmatch and auxfns
files.
this revealed some things that I don't particularly care for in
Clojure, and some things I'm clearly uns
