While we speak about function composition (or not),
you can also use the partial function creator to obtain "point-free" (no
need for anonymous function with formal argument declaration or use) code:
And with the use of comp, you could define the function without even
explicitly naming any formal argument :-) :
1:7 user=> (def deep-csv (comp (partial apply println)
(partial interpose ", ")
seq-utils/flatten))
#'user/deep-csv
1:10 user=> (deep-csv '((1 2 3) (4 5 6)))
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6
nil
For one-shot expression threading, I agree with David that -> would be more
approriate, though the need to enclose the anonymous function definitions in
extraneous parenthesis is not so lisible, even with short forms of anonymous
function definitions:
(defn deep-csv [mr] (-> mr
flatten
(#(interpose ", " %))
(#(apply println %))))
My 0,02€,
--
Laurent
2009/4/1 kkw <[email protected]>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I have some code where I wanted to:
> - take a list of stuff (which includes another list inside)
> - use 'seq-utils/flatten' to flatten the list
> - use 'interpose' to add comma-delimiting strings between the elements
> - print out the results, thereby creating comma-delimited output
>
> I may choose between:
>
> ((comp
> (fn [x] (apply println x))
> (fn [x] (interpose ", " x))
> seq-utils/flatten)
> mr)
>
> OR
>
> (-> mr
> seq-utils/flatten
> ((fn [x] (interpose ", " x)))
> ((fn [x] (apply println x))))
>
> And I found the "->" notation marginally easier to interpret and
> understand. Apart from appearance, are there any benefits to using ->
> instead of the comp function? I happily concede that there exist nicer
> ways to achieve this goal, but the question I wanted to raise
> concerned the benefits of using -> vs comp or vice-versa.
>
> Kev
>
> Kev
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
