This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
- # adventofcode (1)
- # announcements (1)
- # beginners (244)
- # calva (20)
- # cider (11)
- # cljs-dev (34)
- # clojure (50)
- # clojure-spec (1)
- # clojure-uk (3)
- # clojurebridge (1)
- # clojurescript (21)
- # code-reviews (1)
- # cursive (19)
- # events (1)
- # expound (1)
- # fulcro (65)
- # hyperfiddle (6)
- # luminus (3)
- # nrepl (3)
- # off-topic (23)
- # protorepl (4)
- # re-frame (18)
- # rum (11)
- # shadow-cljs (77)
- # spacemacs (8)
- # tools-deps (2)
- # unrepl (1)
- # vim (2)
@cfleming: I have an external tool similar to the IntelliJ Todo "applet" -- it collects comments matching a certain regex, and when you click on the comment, it jumps the IDE to the corresponding file/line
Clojure gurus! I'd like to have a short comment to one design decision. I have three various environments which all connect to their data sources a bit differently and also the data processing is a bit different. I need to implement n different functions for data processing. I could do this using multimethods and dispatch based on environmental variable value which I know for each environment (defined in profiles.clj). But I was wondering if this could be implemented more elegantly e.g. using protocols. Any suggestions?
I was reading about protocols in "Joy of Clojure" and "Clojure Applied". I think I have an idea how to do it more elegantly. I create one namespace per one environment/defrecord definition, and inside that defrecord I define the data processing functions for that environment. I'll create a git branch for this and experiment a bit. Clojure is so fun. 🙂
Damn, I love Clojure REPL. And using IntelliJ IDEA with Cursive and its REPL makes experimenting with the code so fluent and fast. I was having major difficulties to figure out how to call function b from function a using the same protocol. Then I experimented it using REPL and figured out how to do it in a couple of minutes just by experimenting.
"You're living in your program invoking your tools, instead of living in your tools invoking your program" - Stuart Halloway.
But... I have one issue I can't figure out how to do and the Clojure books I have doesn't provide an example for that.
(defprotocol EmailProtocol (lowername [this name]) (email [this host])) (defrecord EmailRecord [ourcompany] EmailProtocol (lowername [this name] (clojure.string/lower-case name)) (email [this contractor] (let [contractorname (lowername this contractor) companyname (lowername this ourcompany)] (str "ext-" contractorname "@" companyname))))
But if I put EmailRecord into another namespace then Clojure complains that it cannot find function lowercase...
(def ourcompany (->EmailRecord "CoolCompany")) (lowername ourcompany "David") => "david" (email ourcompany "David") => "[email protected]"
So, if defrecord EmailRecord is defined in another namespace, the Clojure complains that: Unable to resolve symbol: lowername in this context
(ns pro) (defprotocol EmailProtocol (lowername [this name]) (email [this host])) (ns user) (require '[pro]) (defrecord EmailRecord [ourcompany] pro/EmailProtocol (lowername [this name] (clojure.string/lower-case name)) (email [this contractor] (let [contractorname (pro/lowername this contractor) companyname (pro/lowername this ourcompany)] (str "ext-" contractorname "@" companyname)))) (def ourcompany (->EmailRecord "CoolCompany")) (pro/lowername ourcompany "David") (pro/email ourcompany "David")
I defined the protocol (abstraction) in the namespace
pro and depend on (`require`) the abstraction in the implementation, the
In fact, the definition of the protocol, the record/type, and the coupling of the protocol and the implementation can be in three different namespaces.
This means you can extend a third party type to a protocol by yet another third party in your namespace.
This is Clojure's solution to the expression problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expression_problem
how do I ignore a variable when unifying in core.logic? the usual suspect of
_ fails in this case:
(== x [_ b])
not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but you could introduce a new, unbound logic variable in that position:
(== x [(lvar) b])