My problem requires applying custom logical functions to a structure. Those functions are stored in a database as a string. I have data like this:
(def fruits {:apple {:color "red" :ripe? true}
:strawberry {:color "red" :ripe? false}})
And I have this cond check:
"(some (fn [fruit] (-> fruit val :ripe? false?)) fruits)"
Unfortunatelly I can't get this right even though I tried various approaches:
1)
(cljs/eval-str (cljs/empty-state)
"(some (fn [fruit] (-> fruit val :ripe? false?)) my.main/fruits)"
""
{:eval cljs/js-eval}
identity)
This works yet it yields errors:
WARNING: No such namespace: my.main, could not locate my/main.cljs, my/main.cljc, or Closure namespace "" at line 1
WARNING: Use of undeclared Var my.main/fruits at line 1
Also this approach obviously wouldn't work in advanced compilation.
2) I tried to leverage approach that works in Clojure:
((eval
(read-string
"(fn [fruits]
(some (fn [fruit] (-> fruit val :ripe? false?)) fruits))"))
fruits)
I can't see why this wouldn't work in advanced compilation. Unfortunatelly it simply returns nil every single time.
Is it just me who fails to come up with a solution or is CLJS just not capable of doing that yet?
I suspect your going to have a vary hard time achieving your requirement using
this approach. The big problem is likely going to be due to the way
clojurescirpt needs to be compiled into javascript (using Google closure). You
can probably get it to work doing some clever stuff with externals and using low
level javascript interop and the closure library, but I suspect it will be hard
work.
A couple of alternative approaches which may be worth considering
Store the data in the database in edn format. Using edn, you may be able to
read it into a var and then execute it
Change direction - do you really need to store complete functions or could you
instead define a type of DSL which obtains parameters from the database which
will provide the necessary level of dynamic execution.
Could you have some sort of pre-processing solution i.e. write the function in
clojurescript, but use closure functionality to compile that to javascript and
insert that into the database instead of the raw clojurescript. This would
make the initial storing of the data more complex, but may simplify calling
the dynamic functions at runtime. You could even include some code checks or
validation to reduce the likelihood of code taken from the database doing the
wrong thing.
There are so many risks associated with using totally dynamic code it is almost
never a good solution. Aside from the numerous security issues you have with
this approach, you also have to deal with elegantly handling problems arising
from buggy definitions being inserted into the database (i.e. a buggy function
definition which crashes your app or corrupts data. If you just have to have the
ability to dynamically execute unknown code, then at least edn provides some
additional protection you don't get with eval-str - but really, just don't do
it.
After hours of experiments and struggling with evaluating functions from strings I decided to write DSL.
In database I store string with a map containing these parameters:
:where? - vector containing path to a desired answer.
:what? - answer(s) I'm looking for.
:strict? (optional) - A boolean. If true then answers need to be exactly the same as :what? rule (order doesn’t matter).
Then I just evaluate that simple cljs file. It works both on advanced and none optimization mode.
(defn standard-cond-met? [{:keys [what? where? strict?]
:or {strict? false}}]
(let [answer (get-in answers (conj where? :values))]
(if strict?
(= (sort what?) (sort answer))
(clojure.set/subset?
(set what?)
(set answer)))))
Related
I'm attempting to use a string saved in a variable to call a function like so:
(defn update-product-list [] "Test")
(defn handle-state-change [action]
((resolve (symbol action))))
(handle-state-change "update-product-list")
However, this gives me the following error: Assert failed: Argument to resolve must be a quoted symbol
I've also tried changing the above line to:
((resolve (quote (symbol action))))
But this still gives an error. I also tried changing it just to:
((resolve 'action))
But this gives a different error I don't quite understand: js/action is shadowed by a local. I don't want to override the function just call it. Not sure where I'm going wrong. I've looked at a few examples, but can't see to pin it down.
ClojureScript supports :advanced optimization, in which Google Closure Compiler will rename, inline, or eliminate (unused) functions in order to implement minification. In short, the name of the function you want to look up will, in general, simply no longer exist under :advanced.
Because of this, ClojureScript's resolve is a compile-time facility (a macro requiring a literal quoted symbol).
If you are using :simple or self-hosted ClojureScript, more options are available to you because the support needed persists into runtime. For example Planck has a planck.core/resolve that behave's like Clojure's resolve. A similar approach is possible in Lumo, and similar facilities can be fashioned if using :simple.
In general though, given :advanced, if you need to map strings to a set of functions, you need to somehow arrange to have a static mapping constructed at compile time to support this (the set of functions must be known a priori, at compile time).
If you have a namespace (the name of which is statically known at compile time) which defines functions that need to be dynamically called via strings, you could consider making use of ns-publics:
cljs.user=> (ns foo.core)
foo.core=> (defn square [x] (* x x))
#'foo.core/square
foo.core=> (in-ns 'cljs.user)
nil
cljs.user=> (when-some [fn-var ((ns-publics 'foo.core) (symbol "square"))]
(fn-var 3))
9
This will work under :advanced. The mapping constructed by ns-publics is static; built at compile-time. If you have multiple namespaces that need such treatment, you could merge several calls to ns-publics to build a larger map.
The advantage of this approach is that the code involved is pretty short and requires little maintenance. The disadvantage is that it dumps all of the public vars of the namespace (foo.core in this example) into your generated code (and the generated code for vars is somewhat verbose). Another disadvantage is that you need to statically know the namespace(s) involved at compile time.
If you need to further minimize generated code size, you could just build / maintain a simple static map from string to function value as in
(def fns {"square" foo.core/square})
and use it appropriately, keeping it up to date as your codebase evolves.
Another option would be to mark the functions that you need to access using ^:export meta, and then to call those functions using JavaScript interop. For example if you define the function this way
(defn ^:export square [x] (* x x))
then you can use strings / interop to lookup the function and call it at runtime. Here's an example:
((goog.object/getValueByKeys js/window #js ["foo" "core" "square"]) 3)
The use of ^:export and :advanced is covered here. If you know that you are using :simple or less, then you can simply use JavaScript interop to call the functions of interest, without needn't to use ^:export.
Note that there is no general solution that would let you look up a function by name at runtime under :advanced without somehow putting some aspect of that function into your code at compile time. (In fact, if a function is not referenced in a way that Google Closure Compiler can statically, see, the function implementation will be completely eliminated as dead code.) In the above, ns-publics grabs all the vars for a namespace at compile time, rolling your own lookup map sets up static code to refer to the function value, and using ^:export statically arranges to make the name of the function persist into runtime.
You need to use it like this:
((resolve 'inc) 5)) => 6
or, deconstructed a bit:
(let [the-fn (resolve 'inc)]
(the-fn 7))
=> 8
If you have the function name as a string, use the symbol function to convert from string => symbol (from clojuredocs.org):
user=> ((-> "first" symbol resolve) [1 2 3])
1
And, never forget the Clojure CheatSheet!
It is idiomatic in lisps such as Clojure to use simple data-structures and lots of functions. Still, there are many times when we must work with complex data-structures composed of many simpler ones.
My question is about a matter of good style/practice. In general, should we create functions that take the entire complex object, and within that extract what we need, or should they take exactly and only what they need?
For concreteness, I compare these two options in the following psuedo code
(defrecord Thing
[a b])
(defn one-option
[a]
.. a .. ))
(one-option (:a a-thing))
;; ==============
(defn another-option
[a-thing]
.. (:a a-thing) .. ))
The pros of one-option-f is that the function is simpler, and has fewer responsibilities. It is also more compositional - it can be used in more places.
The downside is that we may end up repeating ourselves. If, for example, we have many functions which transform one Thing into another Thing, many of which need use one-option, within each one we will find ourselves repeating the extraction code. Of course, another option is to create both, but this also adds a certain code overhead.
I think the answer is "It depends" and "It doesn't matter as much in Clojure as it does in object systems". Clojure has a number of largely orthogonal mechanisms designed to express modes of composition. The granularity of function arguments will tend to fall out of how the structure of the program is conceived of in the large.
So much for the hot air. There are some specifics that can affect argument granularity:
Since Clojure data structures are immutable, data hiding and access
functions/methods have little relevance. So the repetition caused by
accessing parts of a complex structure is trifling.
What appear in object-design as associations are rendered by small
collections of typed object pointers in each object. In Clojure,
these tend to become single(ton) global maps. There are a standard
Clojure functions for accessing and manipulating hierarchical
structures of this kind (get-in and assoc-in, for examples).
Where we are looking for dynamically-bound compliance with an
interface, Clojure protocols and datatypes are cleaner and more
adaptable than most object systems. In this case, the whole object is
passed.
Do both. To begin with, provide functions that transform the simplest structures, then add convenience functions for handling more complex structures which compose the functions that handle the simple ones.
Context: I have a clojure-based crossword app whose main ui is a JTabbedPane with two tabs, a grid and a clue table. The clue table is a view over a vector of clues, but the vector itself is not the authoritative store of the data, but dynamically generated from a couple of internal data structures via an (active-cluelist) function, triggered by the clue tab being selected.
So this is the implementation of the clue table:
(def cluelist [])
(def update-cluelist)
(def model)
(defn make []
(let [column-names ["Sq" "Word" "Clue"]
column-widths [48 200 600]
table-model (proxy [AbstractTableModel] []
(getColumnCount [] (count column-names))
(getRowCount [] (count cluelist))
(isCellEditable [row col] (= col 2))
(getColumnName [col] (nth column-names col))
(getValueAt [row col] (get-in cluelist [row col]))
(setValueAt [s row col]
(let [word (get-in cluelist [row 1])]
(add-clue word s) ; editing a cell updates the main clue data
(def cluelist (assoc-in cluelist [row 2] s))
(. this fireTableCellUpdated row col))))
table (JTable. table-model)
]
; some pure display stuff elided
(def model table-model)
)
(defn update-cluelist []
(def cluelist (active-cluelist))
(.fireTableDataChanged model))
Someone in another discussion noted that it is a major code smell for (update-cluelist) to be manually calling fireTableDataChanged, because nothing outside the TableModel class should ever be calling that method. However, I feel this is an unavoidable consequence of the table being dynamically generated from an external source. The docs aren't too helpful - they state that
Your custom class simply needs to invoke one the following
AbstractTableModel methods each time table data is changed by an
external source.
which implicitly assumes that the CustomTableModel class is the authoritative source of the data.
Also there is a bit of a clojure/java impedance mismatch here - in java I would have had cluelist and update-cluelist be a private member and method of my TableModel, whereas in clojure cluelist and the table model are dynamically scoped vars that update-cluelist has access to.
My main problem is that there is not a lot of clojure/swing code around that I can look to for best practices. Does anyone have any advice as to the best way to do this?
Suggestion: use an atom for cluelist. Constantly redefining cluelist is not the right way to represent mutable data. Honestly, I would expect it to throw an exception the second time you define cluelist.
If you use an atom for cluelist, you can call the fireTableDataChanged method from a watcher instead of calling it manually. This would mean that anytime (and anywhere) you change the atom, fireTableDataChanged will be called automatically, without an explicit call.
The issue with def is that calling def multiple times doesn't work well in a multi-threaded environment and Clojure tries to make everything default to fairly threadsafe. As I understand it, the "proper" way to use a var is to leave its root binding alone (ie, don't call def again) and use binding if you need to locally change it. def may work the way you are using it, but the language is set up to support atoms, refs, or agents in this sort of situation and these will probably work better most of the time (ie you get watchers). Also, you don't need to worry at all about threads if you add them later.
can i somehow find all functions/macros that take a specific type of parameter ?
for example, what function accepts a Namespace object as parameter ?
(this is because i can create a namespace and store it in a var, but i don't know where i could use that var; what function might i pass that var to ?)
here is some code:
user=> (def working-namespace (create-ns 'my-namespace))
#'user/working-namespace
;i created a namspace and want to use it later
user=> (class working-namespace)
clojure.lang.Namespace
; out of curiosity i found out that "working-namespace" is a Namespace object
user=> (ns working-namespace)
nil
working-namespace=>
; but how do i switch to it ? this didn't do what i wanted...
user=> (refer working-namespace)
java.lang.ClassCastException: clojure.lang.Namespace cannot be cast to clojure.lang.Symbol (NO_SOURCE_FILE:0)
; this did not work either as my expectations
user=> (the-ns working-namespace)
#<Namespace my-namespace>
user=> (class (the-ns working-namespace))
clojure.lang.Namespace
; great, this gave me the same thing, a Namespace
hence the question: how do i use it dynamically (that's why i had put my namespace into a var) ? how do i get something useful for me from a var that points to a namespace ?
i can try look around for functions that make use of a Namespace object or that convert it to something else. i did and only found "intern". searching by hand not seems not that promising
what if i have this problem a million time ? is there an automated way to get me what i'm looking for without having to ask around each time ?
In Clojure 1.2 and previous function arguments dont have types. every function argument is an object. So the question really becomes "how do i find functions that will cast the object I pass them into this type. so searching for type hints will find some of them, though it wont get you everything. I wish it where more possible to answer this in general.
starting with 1.3 (current dev branch 9/2010) function paramerters and return types can have a defined type and will be passed/returned as that type instead of being cast to object and then cast on the other side. This drops one of the zeros from the exacution time of numerical functions with the important limitation that it only works for :static functions and only with direct calls (ie: not through map/reduce/filter/etc.) There is not a lot published on this change yet though it has the important breaking change that integers are no longer boxed by default and integer (actually Long) overflow throws an exception. you can read more here
(defn ^:static fib ^long [^long n]
(if (<= n 1)
1
(+ (fib (dec n)) (fib (- n 2)))))
so after 1.3 is released and widely adopted you will see code with more commonly defined types because they will offer a big speed benefit and then you will be able to find more functions by argument type though still not all of them.
At the same lecture where I learned about function argument types, Rich mentioned plans in the distant Clojure future (after 'Clojure in Clojure') about better support for exposing the compiler internals to tools such as IDEs. So there is hope that someday you will get a real answer to this question.
Dynamic languages make this slightly more difficult in practice and a lot harder in theory.
You already got a good answer from Arthur, so I'll only answer the "how do i get something useful for me from a var that points to a namespace ?". From (doc ns), note that it says unevaluated:
user=> (doc ns)
-------------------------
clojure.core/ns
([name docstring? attr-map? references*])
Macro
Sets *ns* to the namespace named by name (unevaluated), creating it
Now there's something you could do with in-ns if you want (the whole namespace object -> string -> symbol conversion is probably stupid, but enough to illustrate my point):
user=> (in-ns (symbol (str working-namespace)))
#<Namespace my-namespace>
my-namespace=>
I don't think you can do that without a lot of hackery in a dynamic language. If you want to now what function that take namespaces look at the documentation of the namespace stuff.
For example cleaning namespaces or reload them.
You wrote:
user=> (ns working-namespace)
nil
working-namespace=>
; but how do i switch to it ? this didn't do what i wanted...
But you did switch to the working-namespace namespace (that's why the prompt changed), so I'm not clear as to what "you wanted".
As I noted earlier, you need to present the ultimate problem are you trying to solve. It's entirely likely that messing with namespace objects won't be the solution.
Is there any way to define an Erlang function from within the Erlang shell instead of from an erl file (aka a module)?
Yes but it is painful. Below is a "lambda function declaration" (aka fun in Erlang terms).
1> F=fun(X) -> X+2 end.
%%⇒ #Fun <erl_eval.6.13229925>
Have a look at this post. You can even enter a module's worth of declaration if you ever needed. In other words, yes you can declare functions.
One answer is that the shell only evaluates expressions and function definitions are not expressions, they are forms. In an erl file you define forms not expressions.
All functions exist within modules, and apart from function definitions a module consists of attributes, the more important being the modules name and which functions are exported from it. Only exported functions can be called from other modules. This means that a module must be defined before you can define the functions.
Modules are the unit of compilation in erlang. They are also the basic unit for code handling, i.e. it is whole modules which are loaded into, updated, or deleted from the system. In this respect defining functions separately one-by-one does not fit into the scheme of things.
Also, from a purely practical point of view, compiling a module is so fast that there is very little gain in being able to define functions in the shell.
This depends on what you actually need to do.
There are functions that one could consider as 'throwaways', that is, are defined once to perform a test with, and then you move on. In such cases, the fun syntax is used. Although a little cumbersome, this can be used to express things quickly and effectively. For instance:
1> Sum = fun(X, Y) -> X + Y end.
#Fun<erl_eval.12.128620087>
2> Sum(1, 2).
3
defines an anonymous fun that is bound to the variable (or label) Sum. Meanwhile, the following defines a named fun, called F, that is used to create a new process whose PID (<0.80.0>) is bound to Pid. Note that F is called in a tail recursive fashion in the second clause of receive, enabling the process to loop until the message stop is sent to it.
3> Pid = spawn(fun F() -> receive stop -> io:format("Stopped~n"); Msg -> io:format("Got: ~p~n", [Msg]), F() end end).
<0.80.0>
4> Pid ! hello.
hello
Got: hello
5> Pid ! stop.
Stopped
stop
6>
However you might need to define certain utility functions that you intend to use over and over again in the Erlang shell. In this case, I would suggest using the user_default.erl file together with .erlang to automatically load these custom utility functions into the Erlang shell as soon as this is launched. For instance, you could write a function that compiles all the Erlang files in living in the current directory.
I have written a small guide on how to do this on this GitHub link. You might find it helpful and instructive.
If you want to define a function on the shell to use it as macro (because it encapsulates some functionality that you need frequently), have a look at
https://erldocs.com/current/stdlib/shell_default.html