Actually my solution is wrong! It works for this particular example, but not if there are nodes with overlapping values. Doh!
My main point was just that "into" is a under used gem, that I wanted to publicize a bit. Next time I'll try to find an example that is actually correct! On Dec 3, 12:46 pm, Laurent PETIT <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, > > though I've always found 'into a little bit too magical for me. > For example, I find it hard to follow the doc to see what 'adding' will mean > for maps. > > 2010/12/3 George Jahad <[email protected]> > > > > > > (apply > > > merge-with > > > conj > > > {} > > > (for [nd d nd-pair nd face nd-pair] > > > {face nd})) > > > I like to use into for cases like this: > > > (into {} (for [nd d nd-pair nd face nd-pair] [face nd])) > > > seems clearer to me. > > > g > > > -- > > 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]<clojure%[email protected]> > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- 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
