foldable has slightly different semantics. Reducible == anything you can call reduce to shred through.

foldable is something that can be logically divided into chunks, each chunk reduced, and each reduction combined with a function

Could we say foldable is a subset of reducible?

yeah all foldables are reducible

you essentially divide into 1 chunk

but it's not very useful to consider it a subset / subtype

I think I understand. I am currently working on translating the official reference and I was confused because they seemed to be interchangeable at first glance.

And I agree it is not useful to consider it a subset.

If I understand correctly, fordable are the ones that can be reduced in parallel more efficiently?

yup

it's the reward for the additional constraint

(constraint being: your combining function is associative)

Feel enlightened, thanks!

i've started working on a guide to reducibles for the http://clojure.org site

hopefully i'll finish it someday

not enough people use pure reducibles

the payoff is huge

And hopefully I will translate that to Japanese one day 🙂

I guess one last doubt is that do reducibles get processed in parallel or not?

nope

(only the independent parts of a foldable are potentially run in parallel)

reducibles are logically "left to right" or "begin to end"

1 at a time

Thanks so much! Really helpful to hear from an actual person.

is there a good way to find all the symbols in my project with a given meta tag, or is that a bad idea?

is there a good networked core.async library? found this one but it’s 3 years old https://github.com/tonsky/net.async

@wei this is me shooting from the hip, but aleph/manifold

@wei tonsky/net.async is abandoned way too long ago

I’m looking for someone experienced with deploying Clojure apps (this app is ring+compojure+reagent) who can help us figure out why our jetty deploy has broken and help us setup a reliable deployment system (we’ve also been looking at wildfly). Can anyone recommend someone?

Hi all, I’ve got a function with an optional argument and some constraints that only come in to play when the extra argument is present or has a particular value. I’m trying to spec its arguments...

Once run I don’t care if the search is a :pos-search :nv-search or :`simple-search`. Is there a simpler way to write the following:

(s/def ::query
  (s/cat :search-type
         (s/alt :pos-search
                (s/cat :search-type (set (keys pos-searchs))
                       :part-of-speech #{:noun :verb :adverb :adjective})
                :nv-search
                (s/cat :search-type (set (keys nv-searchs))
                       :part-of-speech #{:noun :verb})
                :simple-search
                (s/cat :search-type (set (keys simple-searchs))))
         :search-string string?))

all I really want back once the query’s been parsed is a map with :search-type, :part-of-speech if present and search-string in it.

Am I asking in the wrong place? Wasn’t expecting it to be so difficult to find someone who can help us...

To be clear, I am not asking for free help. I am looking to pay someone to help.

I don’t expect this is a huge gig, but I am looking to hire someone with some experience to solve the problem for us

@sandbags try asking in #jobs or #consulting

@bostonaholic thanks .. #consulting looks right, hadn’t noticed that one!