On Dec 11, 10:33 pm, Richard Newman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (reduce (fn [model f] (assoc model f (inc (get model f 1))))
> > {} features))
>
> > Do Clojurians usually arrange like that? Can it be rearrange for more
> > understandability?
>
> I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think it's common to jam
> *everything* on one line. I imagine Rich was laying out for space on
> slides.
>
> For maximum readability I would arrange that thusly:
>
> (reduce
> (fn [model f]
> (assoc model
> f (inc (get model f 1))))
> {}
> features))
>
> or, less verbosely
>
> (reduce
> (fn [model f]
> (assoc model f (inc (get model f 1))))
> {} features))
Or one could be ridiculously verbose:
(reduce #(let [[model feature] %&
val (get model feature 1)
val (inc val)]
(assoc model feature val))
{}
features)
Its worth noting that the only reason for these extra steps is that,
unlike get, update-in doesn't take a not-found arg (much to my
chagrin). If it had a signature as has recently been discussed
(http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/
99cc4a6bfe665a6e), then the code could simplified down to:
(reduce #(update-in %1 [%2] 2 inc) {} features)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
