Cool. Thanks for the quick feedback (also thanks for core.logic). I'll continue experimenting.
-Dave On Monday, June 24, 2013 12:14:14 PM UTC-4, David Nolen wrote: > > Yeah there's no "good" way to do this out of the box. You probably want to > define some custom constraints - to perform well you might even need to go > so far as to define a new constraint domain. > > Things are not at the point where I feel comfortably describing how this > can be done as the details are likely to change in the near future. > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM, David Rocamora > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've been exploring core.logic while working through The Reasoned Schemer >> and would like to be able to describe relationships between IP addresses >> and networks that they may or may not be a part of. It's straightforward to >> do this in Clojure because I can use bit-and on a network and a mask and on >> an IP and a mask. If the results are the same, then the IP is in the >> network. At least, that is how I understand it. Here's a predicate function >> that does this: >> >> >>> (defn in-network? >> >> [address network netmask] >> >> (= (map bit-and network netmask) >> >> (map bit-and address netmask))) >> >> >>> ;; 192.168.1.3 is in 192.168.1.0/24 >> >> >> >> (in-network? >> >> [192 168 1 3] >> >> [192 168 1 0] >> >> [255 255 255 0]) ;; true >> >> >> >> ;; but 192.168.100.3 isn't >> >> >> >> (in-network? >> >> [192 168 100 3] >> >> [192 168 1 0] >> >> [255 255 255 0]) ;; false >> >> >> It would be cool to be able to do this with core.logic so I could have a >> relationship like in-networko that could describe IPs and networks. I'm >> running into issues implementing this because lvars aren't supported by the >> bitwise operators from Clojure and I can't seem to find anything in >> core.logic that does what I need out of the box. The Reasoned Schemer >> describes a bunch of bitwise operations, but implementing them seems like >> it will involve a lot of work to turn the integers from an IP into lists of >> bits and back again. Is there a better way to do this? Any insight would be >> appreciated. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Dave >> >> -- >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> 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] <javascript:> >> 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
