https://github.com/rplevy/swiss-arrows.git
git clone 'https://github.com/rplevy/swiss-arrows.git'
(ql:quickload :rplevy.swiss-arrows)
A collection of arrow macros.
http://clojars.org/swiss-arrows
(ns example.core
(:require [swiss.arrows :refer :all]))-<> , -<>> The Diamond Wand, Diamond Spear
some-<> , some-<>> The Nil-shortcutting Diamond Wand
apply→ , apply→> Applicative arrows (WIP)
-!> , -!>> , -!<> Non-updating Arrows
<← The Back Arrow
-< , -<:p The Furcula, Parallel Furcula
-<< , -<<:p The Trystero Furcula, Parallel Trystero Furcula
-<>< , -<><:p The Diamond Fishing Rod, Parallel Diamond Fishing Rod
The Diamond Wand - similar to → or →> except that the flow of execution is passed through specified <> positions in each of the forms.
(-<> 2
(* <> 5)
(vector 1 2 <> 3 4))
=> [1 2 10 3 4]The diamond wand also supports literals:
;; map
(-<> 'foo {:a <> :b 'bar}) => {:a 'foo :b 'bar}
;; vector
(-<> 10 [1 2 3 <> 4 5]) => [1 2 3 10 4 5]Like → & →> interpret a symbol x as (x), -<> interprets x as (x <>)
(-<> :a
(map <> [{:a 1} {:a 2}])
(map (partial + 2) <>)
reverse)
=> [4 3]Default Positioning Behavior
If no <> position marker is found in a form within the Diamond Wand -<>, the default positioning behavior follows that of the → macro. Likewise, if no position is specified in a form within the Diamond Spear -<>>, the default is has the positioning semantics of →>.
Some examples:
(-<> 0 [1 2 3]) => [0 1 2 3]
(-<> 0 (list 1 2 3)) => '(0 1 2 3)
(-<>> 4 (conj [1 2 3])) => [1 2 3 4]
(-<> 4 (cons [1 2 3]) reverse (map inc <>)) => [4 3 2 5])Nil-shortcutting Diamond Wand
(some-<> "abc"
(if (string? "adf") nil <>)
(str <> " + more"))
=> nil (apply->>
[[1 2] [3 4]]
(concat [5 6])) => [5 6 1 2 3 4]
(apply->> [[1 2] [3 4]]
(concat [5 6])
+) => 21Based on idea suggested by @rebcabin:
“Since I noticed that the “nil-shortcutting diamond wand” acts like the Maybe monad, I started getting the feeling that the swiss arrows could be generalized over all monads. Since the archetype of monads is the sequence monad and the mother operator, bind, for sequence is (apply concat (map my-foo your-sequence-monad)) I started to see chaining of apply-concat as a start toward monadic swiss arrows :)
Also, Wolfram / Mathematica have a host of operators that thread and merge Apply around expressions (see http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/Apply.html). Mathematica was designed before monads were formalized in programming languages, but their precursors are all over Mathematica, for instance in the frequent use of Apply. [edit: I should add, contextually, that I am a big admirer of Mathematica just as a programming language, never mind its huge knowledge base of math. I often refer to it for ideas to bring to Clojure and other languages.]
As for the first argument being special, that didn't seem out-of-step with the other arrows, none of which, for instance, can take an expression with an angle-hole “<>” in the first position, and all of which take expressions-with-angle-holes in every slot except the first, modulo the defaults. The defaults are abundant and require the same kind of mental substitution that apply→> etc. would require, so the overall design has established the precedent of “implicits.””
It is often expedient, in particular for debugging and logging, to stick a side-effecting form midway in the pipeline of an arrow. One solution is a pair of utility macros “with” and “within” A caveat of that approach is that having too many anaphoric macros can lead to messy code, and they don't nest (eg. #( ) reader macro), and so on.
Non-updating arrows offer an adequately elegant alternative solution for inserting side-action in what would otherwise be a difficult situation. As a bonus, the arrow-style macros (including the wand– the <> does not refer to any sort of binding, and does not act recursively so it is not anaphoric in the usual sense, if at all) do not rely on symbol capture, and therefore are arbitrarily nestable.
(-> {:foo "bar"}
(assoc :baz ["quux" "you"])
(-!> :baz second (prn "got here"))
(-!>> :baz first (prn "got here"))
(-!<> :baz second (prn "got" <> "here"))
(assoc :bar "foo"))
=> {:foo "bar"
:baz ["quux" "you"]
:bar "foo"}This is simply →> with its arguments reversed, convenient in some cases. It was suggested as an alternative to egamble/let-else.
(<<-
(let [x 'nonsense])
(if-not x 'foo)
(let [more 'blah] more)) => 'blahThe following six arrows (three, and their parallel counterparts) are branching arrows, in contrast with the “threading” or “nesting” arrows we have seen thus far. The following example demonstrates how branching and nesting arrows can work together to cleanly express a flow of control. Here our first branching arrow, The Furcula, passes the result of (+ 1 2) to each of the successive forms, which is then nested out horizontally into further expressions using traditional arrows.
(-< (+ 1 2)
(->> vector (repeat 3))
(-> (* 2) list)
(list 4)) => '[([3] [3] [3]) (6) (3 4)]The Furcula - a branching arrow using the → form placement convention. Expands to a let performing the initial operation, and then individual expressions using it. In the parallel version, the individual expressions are evaluated in futures.
(-< (+ 1 2) (list 2) (list 3) (list 4)) => '[(3 2) (3 3) (3 4)]
;; The Parallel Furcula
(-<:p (+ 1 2) (list 2) (list 3) (list 4)) => '[(3 2) (3 3) (3 4)]The Trystero Furcula - another branching arrow. Same idea as -<, except it uses the →> form placement convention.
(-<< (+ 1 2) (list 2 1) (list 5 7) (list 9 4)) => '[(2 1 3) (5 7 3) (9 4 3)]
;; Parallel Trystero Furcula
(-<<:p (+ 1 2) (list 2 1) (list 5 7) (list 9 4)) => '[(2 1 3) (5 7 3) (9 4 3)]The Diamond Fishing Rod - another branching arrow. Same idea as -< and -<<, except it uses the -<> form placement convention.
(-<>< (+ 1 2) [<> 2 1] [5 <> 7] [9 4 <>]) => '[(3 2 1) (5 3 7) (9 4 3)]
;; Parallel Diamond Fishing Rod
(-<><:p (+ 1 2) [<> 2 1] [5 <> 7] [9 4 <>]) => '[(3 2 1) (5 3 7) (9 4 3)]See the tests for more examples.
Credits:
Walter Tetzner, Stephen Compall, and I designed and implemented something similar to the “diamond wand” a couple of years ago.
Thanks to Alex Baranosky, Roman Perepelitsa, Paul Dorman, @rebcabin, and Stephen Compall for code contributions and conceptual contributions.
Copyright (C) 2012 Robert P. Levy
Distributed under the Eclipse Public License, the same as Clojure.