I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions
implemented[1] as follows:
(defn conjoin
"Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical
AND
of said functions against a bunch of values."
[& preds]
(fn [& args]
(every? (fn [arg]
(every? #(% arg)
preds))
args)))
(defn disjoin
"Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical
OR
of said functions against a bunch of values."
[& preds]
(fn [& args]
(some (fn [arg]
(some #(% arg)
preds))
args)))
I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to
exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them
out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions
in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's
unclear where they would fit.
> I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions > implemented[1] as follows:
> (defn conjoin > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical > AND > of said functions against a bunch of values." > [& preds] > (fn [& args] > (every? (fn [arg] > (every? #(% arg) > preds)) > args)))
> (defn disjoin > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical > OR > of said functions against a bunch of values." > [& preds] > (fn [& args] > (some (fn [arg] > (some #(% arg) > preds)) > args)))
> I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to > exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them > out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions > in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's > unclear where they would fit.
As a side effect of conjoin using every? and disjoin using some, disjoin returns nil and disjoin returns false in cases when the conditions fail.
Is that a good idea? Does renaming disjoin to disjoin? make any sense?
> I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions > implemented[1] as follows:
> (defn conjoin > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical > AND > of said functions against a bunch of values." > [& preds] > (fn [& args] > (every? (fn [arg] > (every? #(% arg) > preds)) > args)))
> (defn disjoin > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical > OR > of said functions against a bunch of values." > [& preds] > (fn [& args] > (some (fn [arg] > (some #(% arg) > preds)) > args)))
> I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to > exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them > out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions > in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's > unclear where they would fit.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
I'm not a huge fan of varargs here since in most code where I needed this kind of functinality I already had collections.
As a side note, you can simplify this kind of code by inverting args and preds walks: (defn conjoin [& preds] (fn [& args] (every? #(every? % args) preds)))
> I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I think > having them in core makes sense.
> Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end in ?
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Fogus <mefo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions > > implemented[1] as follows:
> > (defn conjoin > > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical > > AND > > of said functions against a bunch of values." > > [& preds] > > (fn [& args] > > (every? (fn [arg] > > (every? #(% arg) > > preds)) > > args)))
> > (defn disjoin > > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical > > OR > > of said functions against a bunch of values." > > [& preds] > > (fn [& args] > > (some (fn [arg] > > (some #(% arg) > > preds)) > > args)))
> > I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to > > exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them > > out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions > > in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's > > unclear where they would fit.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> I'm not a huge fan of varargs here since in most code where I needed this > kind of functinality I already had collections.
> As a side note, you can simplify this kind of code by inverting args and > preds walks: > (defn conjoin [& preds] > (fn [& args] (every? #(every? % args) preds)))
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Justin Balthrop < > jus...@justinbalthrop.com> wrote:
>> I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I >> think having them in core makes sense.
>> Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end in >> ?
>> On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Fogus <mefo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions >> > implemented[1] as follows:
>> > (defn conjoin >> > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical >> > AND >> > of said functions against a bunch of values." >> > [& preds] >> > (fn [& args] >> > (every? (fn [arg] >> > (every? #(% arg) >> > preds)) >> > args)))
>> > (defn disjoin >> > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical >> > OR >> > of said functions against a bunch of values." >> > [& preds] >> > (fn [& args] >> > (some (fn [arg] >> > (some #(% arg) >> > preds)) >> > args)))
>> > I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to >> > exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them >> > out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions >> > in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's >> > unclear where they would fit.
>> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure Dev" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> >> . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Clojure Dev" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I think having them in core makes sense.
> Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end in ?
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Fogus <mefo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions
> > implemented[1] as follows:
> > (defn conjoin
> > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical
> > AND
> > of said functions against a bunch of values."
> > [& preds]
> > (fn [& args]
> > (every? (fn [arg]
> > (every? #(% arg)
> > preds))
> > args)))
> > (defn disjoin
> > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical
> > OR
> > of said functions against a bunch of values."
> > [& preds]
> > (fn [& args]
> > (some (fn [arg]
> > (some #(% arg)
> > preds))
> > args)))
> > I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to
> > exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them
> > out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions
> > in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's
> > unclear where they would fit.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure Dev" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Alan <a...@malloys.org> wrote: > Seconded. I was actually about to put a request for these on JIRA when > I found Fogus's request here.
> On Jan 24, 8:00 am, Justin Balthrop <jus...@justinbalthrop.com> wrote: > > I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I > think having them in core makes sense.
> > Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end in > ?
> > On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Fogus <mefo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions > > > implemented[1] as follows:
> > > (defn conjoin > > > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical > > > AND > > > of said functions against a bunch of values." > > > [& preds] > > > (fn [& args] > > > (every? (fn [arg] > > > (every? #(% arg) > > > preds)) > > > args)))
> > > (defn disjoin > > > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical > > > OR > > > of said functions against a bunch of values." > > > [& preds] > > > (fn [& args] > > > (some (fn [arg] > > > (some #(% arg) > > > preds)) > > > args)))
> > > I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to > > > exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them > > > out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions > > > in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's > > > unclear where they would fit.
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure Dev" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
I like Christophe's implementations. I agree that the proposed functions would be useful. It's probably good to spend a release cycle in contrib. You could start a higher-order functions section for contrib. As an aside, I think it's important that we keep new users in mind when adding functions to core. Lots of useful functions are outside of core (such as the set functions), and I don't feel that the proposed methods need to be in core right away.
I'm concerned about the proposed names being confused with conj and disj (especially by new users.) In particular, the doc strings say that they're short for conj[oin] and disj[oin]. 'any' and 'all' might be better. Although, confusion with 'any?' could also be an issue. That's another reason to go with contrib for the first release.
Clojure already has comp and juxt, which follow this pattern of taking var-args of functions. That part seems OK to me.
Regards, Steve Miner
On Jan 24, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Christophe Grand wrote:
> I'm not a huge fan of varargs here since in most code where I needed this kind of functinality I already had collections.
> As a side note, you can simplify this kind of code by inverting args and preds walks: > (defn conjoin [& preds] > (fn [& args] (every? #(every? % args) preds)))
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Justin Balthrop <jus...@justinbalthrop.com> wrote: >> I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I think having them in core makes sense.
>> Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end in ?
> I like Christophe's implementations. I agree that the proposed functions would be useful. It's probably good to spend a release cycle in contrib. You could start a higher-order functions section for contrib. As an aside, I think it's important that we keep new users in mind when adding functions to core. Lots of useful functions are outside of core (such as the set functions), and I don't feel that the proposed methods need to be in core right away.
> I'm concerned about the proposed names being confused with conj and disj (especially by new users.) In particular, the doc strings say that they're short for conj[oin] and disj[oin]. 'any' and 'all' might be better. Although, confusion with 'any?' could also be an issue. That's another reason to go with contrib for the first release.
> Clojure already has comp and juxt, which follow this pattern of taking var-args of functions. That part seems OK to me.
> Regards, > Steve Miner
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Christophe Grand wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm not a huge fan of varargs here since in most code where I needed this kind of functinality I already had collections.
>> As a side note, you can simplify this kind of code by inverting args and preds walks: >> (defn conjoin [& preds] >> (fn [& args] (every? #(every? % args) preds)))
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Justin Balthrop <jus...@justinbalthrop.com> wrote: >>> I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I think having them in core makes sense.
>>> Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end in ?
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Steve Miner <stevemi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like Christophe's implementations. I agree that the proposed functions > would be useful. It's probably good to spend a release cycle in contrib. You > could start a higher-order functions section for contrib. As an aside, I > think it's important that we keep new users in mind when adding functions to > core. Lots of useful functions are outside of core (such as the set > functions), and I don't feel that the proposed methods need to be in core > right away.
> I'm concerned about the proposed names being confused with conj and disj > (especially by new users.) In particular, the doc strings say that they're > short for conj[oin] and disj[oin]. 'any' and 'all' might be better. > Although, confusion with 'any?' could also be an issue. That's another > reason to go with contrib for the first release.
> Clojure already has comp and juxt, which follow this pattern of taking > var-args of functions. That part seems OK to me.
> Regards, > Steve Miner
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Christophe Grand wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm not a huge fan of varargs here since in most code where I needed this > kind of functinality I already had collections.
> > As a side note, you can simplify this kind of code by inverting args and > preds walks: > > (defn conjoin [& preds] > > (fn [& args] (every? #(every? % args) preds)))
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Justin Balthrop < > jus...@justinbalthrop.com> wrote: > >> I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I > think having them in core makes sense.
> >> Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end > in ?
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
I concur in disliking conjoin and disjoin although I don't have a strong preference for any of the alternatives mentioned. any and all/every seem like better words.
________________________________ From: Cosmin Stejerean <cos...@offbytwo.com> To: clojure-dev@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 8:02:50 PM Subject: Re: conjoin and disjoin for core or contrib?
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Sean Devlin <francoisdev...@gmail.com> wrote:
I named my versions any-pred & every-pred, fwiw. +1 for any-pred and every-pred instead of conjoin and disjoin.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Alex Miller <alexdmil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I needed these just last week! +1 > I concur in disliking conjoin and disjoin although I don't have a strong > preference for any of the alternatives mentioned. any and all/every seem > like better words. > ________________________________ > From: Cosmin Stejerean <cos...@offbytwo.com> > To: clojure-dev@googlegroups.com > Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 8:02:50 PM > Subject: Re: conjoin and disjoin for core or contrib?
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Sean Devlin <francoisdev...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> I named my versions any-pred & every-pred, fwiw.
> +1 for any-pred and every-pred instead of conjoin and disjoin.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
So it seems that there is some interest in the following:
- Contribify these functions
- ... in a new contrib module (functional, combinators, fun, other?)
- ... with different names (any/every-pred, other?)
- ... and (possibly) include other similar functions
I'm happy to spear-head setting this up if Clojure/core is interested.
> So it seems that there is some interest in the following:
> - Contribify these functions > - ... in a new contrib module (functional, combinators, fun, other?) > - ... with different names (any/every-pred, other?) > - ... and (possibly) include other similar functions
> I'm happy to spear-head setting this up if Clojure/core is interested.
I'll take them in core as every-pred and any-pred, but you'll have to do the variadic unrolling as per comp and juxt. Extra credit for a macro that eliminates the tedium of such unrolling and works for comp, juxt et al.
> So it seems that there is some interest in the following:
> - Contribify these functions > - ... in a new contrib module (functional, combinators, fun, other?) > - ... with different names (any/every-pred, other?) > - ... and (possibly) include other similar functions
> I'm happy to spear-head setting this up if Clojure/core is interested.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
Thanks for the work on this, Fogus! The patch needs a small fix, and maybe some discussion about the name "some" vs. "any". I would like to get this in today, if anybody has time to respond to questions at http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-729.
I agree with you comments about the boolean behavior of every-pred.
I've also deliberately named my version of any-pred that way, because it return a boolean. Of course, I also think there should be a any? fn in core as well, so YMMV.
> wrote: > > So it seems that there is some interest in the following:
> > - Contribify these functions > > - ... in a new contrib module (functional, combinators, fun, other?) > > - ... with different names (any/every-pred, other?) > > - ... and (possibly) include other similar functions
> > I'm happy to spear-head setting this up if Clojure/core is interested.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> Thanks for the work on this, Fogus! The patch needs a small fix, and maybe > some discussion about the name "some" vs. "any". I would like to get this in > today, if anybody has time to respond to questions at > http://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-729.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> I'm not a huge fan of varargs here since in most code where I needed this > kind of functinality I already had collections.
> As a side note, you can simplify this kind of code by inverting args and > preds walks: > (defn conjoin [& preds] > (fn [& args] (every? #(every? % args) preds)))
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Justin Balthrop < > jus...@justinbalthrop.com> wrote:
>> I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I >> think having them in core makes sense.
>> Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end in >> ?
>> On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Fogus <mefo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions >> > implemented[1] as follows:
>> > (defn conjoin >> > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical >> > AND >> > of said functions against a bunch of values." >> > [& preds] >> > (fn [& args] >> > (every? (fn [arg] >> > (every? #(% arg) >> > preds)) >> > args)))
>> > (defn disjoin >> > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical >> > OR >> > of said functions against a bunch of values." >> > [& preds] >> > (fn [& args] >> > (some (fn [arg] >> > (some #(% arg) >> > preds)) >> > args)))
>> > I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to >> > exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them >> > out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions >> > in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's >> > unclear where they would fit.
>> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure Dev" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> >> . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Clojure Dev" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Paul Stadig <p...@stadig.name> wrote: > Perhaps it all depends upon your application, but the original version is > better for lazy seqs. With Christophe's version this will never return
> (apply (conjoin pos? even?) (iterate inc 1))
> Paul
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Christophe Grand <christo...@cgrand.net>wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm not a huge fan of varargs here since in most code where I needed this >> kind of functinality I already had collections.
>> As a side note, you can simplify this kind of code by inverting args and >> preds walks: >> (defn conjoin [& preds] >> (fn [& args] (every? #(every? % args) preds)))
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Justin Balthrop < >> jus...@justinbalthrop.com> wrote:
>>> I have similar functions named 'any' and 'all' in my utils library. I >>> think having them in core makes sense.
>>> Both return functions, so it doesn't make sense for disjoin/any to end in >>> ?
>>> On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Fogus <mefo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I've recently come across a need for conjoin and disjoin functions >>> > implemented[1] as follows:
>>> > (defn conjoin >>> > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical >>> > AND >>> > of said functions against a bunch of values." >>> > [& preds] >>> > (fn [& args] >>> > (every? (fn [arg] >>> > (every? #(% arg) >>> > preds)) >>> > args)))
>>> > (defn disjoin >>> > "Given a bunch of predicates, returns a function that is the logical >>> > OR >>> > of said functions against a bunch of values." >>> > [& preds] >>> > (fn [& args] >>> > (some (fn [arg] >>> > (some #(% arg) >>> > preds)) >>> > args)))
>>> > I might have lost my mind, but neither of these functions appear to >>> > exist in core or contrib and I thought it might be worth floating them >>> > out for general consumption to see if they might be useful inclusions >>> > in one or the other. The problem in the case of contrib is that it's >>> > unclear where they would fit.
>>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Clojure Dev" group. >>> > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> >>> . >>> > For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Clojure Dev" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Clojure Dev" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure Dev" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure-dev@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<clojure-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegr oups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure-dev?hl=en.
Also needed these function this week - but I called them and? and or?.
Not sure if it's best to use ? as suffix for higher-order predicates,
but I've added a bunch more and it seems quite readable to me:
> Also needed these function this week - but I called them and? and or?.
> Not sure if it's best to use ? as suffix for higher-order predicates,
> but I've added a bunch more and it seems quite readable to me:
