@noisesmith @scot-brown @flowthing @admay Thank you very much for your comments! I found this discussion very illuminating.

@sabbatical2017 My pleasure!

@noisesmith @scot-brown @flowthing @admay @alexmiller For the record, I have come up with a solution using datascript that I consider very easy to read and reflecting my intent very well: (datascript.core/q '[:find ?a (min ?b) :in [[?a ?b] ...]] x). This returns ([2 2] [0 0] [1 1]) as required (here, as before, I used x to denote [[0 0] [0 1] [1 1] [1 2] [1 3] [2 2]].) The only drawback is that the datascript query takes 47 microseconds to run, as opposed to the 5 microseconds in scot-brown's neat ->> suggestion, but it seems still plenty fast enough for me.

i have [{:a 1 😛 1} {:a 2 😛 2} {:a 3 😛 3}] and [{:c 1} {:c 2} {:c 3}] and i want [{:a 1 😛 1 :c 1} [{:a 2 😛 2 :c 2} [{:a 3 😛 3 :c 3}] ??

😛 refers to ": b"

@amit5881 use three backticks (`) to wrap blocks of code

here’s one way to do it:

user=> (def a [{:a 1 :b 1} {:a 2 :b 2} {:a 3 :b 3}])
#'user/a
user=> (def b [{:c 1} {:c 2} {:c 3}])
#'user/b
user=> (mapv merge a b)
[{:a 1 :b 1 :c 1} {:a 2 :b 2 :c 2} {:a 3 :b 3 :c 3}]

i’m doing a coding exercise where you have to refactor some intentionally (the writers knew better) code. The clojure version seems particuallry perverse, though i could imagine worse if you were trying to be hard to read. It really feels like someone would have to go out of there way to use so many atoms, for loops and do blocks though.