On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:24 AM, e wrote:
> ok, I'll check that stuff out. Thanks.
>
> It occurs to me this is being compared to something in ruby called
> partition. I like that name. "partition-by" ... but maybe it was opted to
> use the simpler name, which I can appreciate.
There is alread
ok, I'll check that stuff out. Thanks.
It occurs to me this is being compared to something in ruby called
partition. I like that name. "partition-by" ... but maybe it was opted to
use the simpler name, which I can appreciate.
On that subject, I know "filter" is standard from other languages li
On Jan 25, 2009, at 5:24 PM, e wrote:
Do folks in the contrib group like this new implementation?
To make contributions to clojure-contrib, you'll need to have a
Contributor Agreement on file with Rich. Please see http://clojure.org/contributing
.
I think your implementation is an impro
ok, those times make sense. The times are at least half the speed from the
single pass, and more so because no recursion.
So you have to do "dorun" to force the evaluation of each list? I was
wondering about this, too. If you had done doall on the answer, it wouldn't
have been a "deep execution"
Hi e,
Most of the time is taken up by printing, which is why you see the
same times. Here's an example that gives the results you would expect.
user> (def numbers (doall (take 50 (repeatedly #(rand-int
3000)
#'user/numbers
user> (defn predicate [x] (< x 1500))
#'user/predicate
user> (dot
oh, so anyway, i put it in that specific place because I wasn't sure if,
without it, l1 would just be some sort of smart, lazy list that only exists
when you start trying to get the values. I didn't think so, but, again, I'm
just trying to shotgun the problem.
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:57 PM, e
people are paying a lot of attention to "pure" functional languages, which I
think mean ones that don't ever destroy data structures out from under
people pointing at them. Instead, people who need different views just get
their own different views -- possibly reusing common components.
This othe
Hi e,
I'm still learning the basics, very much like you( I guess you are ahead of
me in Clojure). However, I have a question for you and not an answer to your
questions. Why do you have doall here (def l1 (doall (take 5 (repeatedly
#(rand-int 3000) . From my little knowledge of Clojure, ta
The IRC channel folks helped me implement what we discovered was
already called "separate" in contribs. My point was to do a partition
that generated the two lists "(passes pred)" and "(fails pred)" in one
pass without recursion.
We ended up with:
(defn filt-rem [pred coll]
(loop [l1 () l2
