This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2019-09-23
Channels
- # announcements (2)
- # beginners (150)
- # calva (59)
- # cider (10)
- # clj-kondo (63)
- # cljs-dev (15)
- # cljsrn (34)
- # clojure (127)
- # clojure-dev (16)
- # clojure-europe (12)
- # clojure-italy (18)
- # clojure-nl (6)
- # clojure-russia (3)
- # clojure-uk (23)
- # clojurescript (18)
- # clojutre (15)
- # clr (2)
- # cursive (3)
- # datomic (26)
- # duct (6)
- # fulcro (9)
- # graalvm (3)
- # joker (9)
- # lambdaisland (1)
- # off-topic (12)
- # om (1)
- # pathom (29)
- # re-frame (16)
- # reagent (2)
- # shadow-cljs (57)
- # slack-help (2)
- # spacemacs (45)
- # sql (20)
- # xtdb (3)
- # yada (3)
there are a couple of avenues of things that are worth looking into for merge
: transients && IReduceKV based impls
Scala's new PHMs do merging based on the actual tree nodes themselves. Might be worth a look, too. Michael Steindorfer is the reference for those papers
there's some aborted work in a ticket on transients + map merge, but it needs more analysis
one bounding constraint is that the conj operation (merge {:a :b} [:c :d])
remains valid
why should that a bounding constraint? I've only seen this conj-y way of using merge in beginner's 4clojure solutions. I came across those when validating specs in https://github.com/borkdude/speculative. I've haven't come across this usage anywhere else.
I know docstrings don't always paint the complete picture, but combined evidence ...