Hi Chris,
CrossClj is similar in spirit to Hoogle, although it is more focused on
cross-project browsing
https://crossclj.info/
However, you cannot search by type signature, being Clojure not statically
typed ;-)
Francesco
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 7:52:31 AM UTC+2, zcaudate wrote:
It is correct that vectors aren't a suitable choice for datastructures that
need "random-access-removal". The problem is that you seem to need both
fast index lookup and be able to access elements "after" removed elements
quickly even when there are holes in the backing array.
There are some so
I reviewed the Python3 cookbook a while ago and would love to do the
same for a Clojure book,
thanks,
Andrea
2015-08-26 7:03 GMT+01:00 Akhil Wali :
> It's great to see so many volunteers for this project!
> Like I mentioned earlier, I have notified Packt and they shall contact
> anyone who is shor
Hi Moe.
That looks really useful, and as far as I can tell yours is the only
library for SNS. I'm considering using your library in a production app,
are there any pitfalls I should be aware of?
>From quickly browsing the sources, it is not clear to me what the functions
declared by the defiss
That should come in handy, thanks!
Matthias
Den onsdag den 26. august 2015 kl. 00.04.34 UTC+2 skrev Rafik NACCACHE:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I contributed an Instant Answer to DuckDuckGo.
>
>
> When you search for "Clojure" with a number of terms, you directly have
> under the "software" tab all the pac
Matthias,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Matthias Diehn Ingesman
wrote:
> That looks really useful, and as far as I can tell yours is the only library
> for SNS. I'm considering using your library in a production app, are there
> any pitfalls I should be aware of?
Nothing comes to mind - what
In a similar vein, you can use ‘!clojars’ to search on Clojars directly, e.g.
‘!clojars cheshire’.
—Chris
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 3:11 AM, Matthias Diehn Ingesman
> wrote:
>
> That should come in handy, thanks!
>
> Matthias
>
> Den onsdag den 26. august 2015 kl. 00.04.34 UTC+2 skrev Rafik NACC
I can't really speak to what's more idiomatic, but there is a slight
difference between a top-level let and ^:const ^:private.
^:const makes the compiler directly inline the form, thus it works only on
pr-dup - able values. This has gotten me by surprise some times.
This also duplicates values, tha
I might have missed one or two of those pieces of documentation; will take a
look in the morning tomorrow.
My plans are just to use the SNS parts of fink-nottle to create and delete
device endpoints, and subsequently publish to them. My use case is about as
basic as it gets, I think.
--
You
I might have missed one or two of those pieces of documentation; will take a
look in the morning tomorrow.
My plans are just to use the SNS parts of fink-nottle to create and delete
device endpoints, and subsequently publish to them. My use case is about as
basic as it gets, I think.
Regards,
Suppose I have the following macro, which generates a function that does
some repetitive generation, let's say:
(defmacro a-macro
[m]
`(fn [f#]
~(for [i# m]
`(* (:val f#) ~i#
Note how I start with a quoted block in which I emit the fn header, and in
which I use a gensym to
You want an explicit gensym that scopes over both positions.
(defmacro a-macro
[m]
(let [f (gensym "f)]
`(fn [~f]
~(for [i# m]
`(* (:val ~f) ~i# )
Thanks,
Ambrose
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Rafik NACCACHE
wrote:
> Suppose I have the following macro, which ge
unify-gensyms from potemkin will fix this:
https://github.com/ztellman/potemkin
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Rafik NACCACHE
wrote:
> Suppose I have the following macro, which generates a function that does
> some repetitive generation, let's say:
>
> (defmacro a-macro
> [m]
> `(fn [f#]
What Ambrose said and:
There is no need to use a hash for i in the for form. It is misleading
because one thinks it will become a generated symbol as part of the
generated form which is untrue.
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 11:08:12 PM UTC+2, Rafik NACCACHE wrote:
>
> Suppose I have the foll
Auto generated symbols (x# style) are only valid within a single syntax
quote form. Instead declare the symbol ahead of time, something like this:
(let [fsym (gensym "f_)]
`(fn [~fsym]
~@(for [x (range 10]
`(println ~fsym ~x
Hope this helps.
Timothy
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015
Would someone care to rationalize the implementation of (rationalize)?
(type (rationalize (/ 64 8)))
java.lang.Long
(type (rationalize (/ 64 7)))
clojure.lang.Ratio
(type (rationalize (/ 49 7)))
java.lang.Long
(type (rationalize (/ 49 6)))
clojure.lang.Ratio
Extraordinarily thorny to alternate ty
On 8/25/15 12:06 AM, Kurt Sys wrote:
> I'm refering to a few posts in an old thread:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/clojure/r_ym-h53f1E/RzUdb5oYeX4J
>
> What really puzzles me is that it doesn't seem to be generally
> regarded as idiomatic Clojure style to just use top-level (let)s for
This is logged at http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-1435 - feel free to
vote for it.
--
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 - p
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:26 PM, waffletower
wrote:
> Would someone care to rationalize the implementation of (rationalize)?
>
Sorry, I don't have an answer of the form "Rich Hickey's rationale for this
behavior is X", because I don't know what X is for this behavior. I can
point out a few thin
I am interested too if not too late... Thanks
--
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 un
Allright, so I'll probably stick to top-level lets... Thx!
Op woensdag 26 augustus 2015 18:44:18 UTC+2 schreef Herwig Hochleitner:
>
> I can't really speak to what's more idiomatic, but there is a slight
> difference between a top-level let and ^:const ^:private.
> ^:const makes the compiler dire
I do understand that point of view and largely agree. However, some (pretty
small) functions or constants are private to some namespace, or rather, to
some scope inside a namespace. I consider the public functions as the 'API
of the namespace'. Internals shouldn't be exposed, so I can change
i
I'd be interested. I've been looking for Clojure books past the introductory
level. It sounds like you're aiming for a good "second Clojure book."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegr
23 matches
Mail list logo
