code refactored for beginners, with extensive comments and docstrings

[gw666]

Hi--I completely changed things around to make the code to my liking. I apologize for the inadequacies of my commit stream--I'm still learning good git usage.

Feel free to take any part(s) of it you desire. Thanks.

Gregg

PS: It would be nice to get a brief note back from you. I feel I'm dumping code into the void. GW

[thattommyhall]

Hey @gw666, I can't merge it as it has answers in it :-)

I did a talk about the escher stuff for a user group a few weeks ago, which closes some of the exposition gap from just the slides, I'll send the video round soon.

I actually was unsure about using clojure vectors for the project (at the cost of some data abstraction), I like that you added make-vec but kept using the destructuring (if you were to swap out vecs for for instance more efficient tuples you would have to do at least that). Have a look if you can swap out your make-vec for one that returns a tuple https://github.com/ztellman/clj-tuple and see if everything still works.

Have a look at the interpreter project, there is a video for that coming soon too.

[gw666]

Hi, Tommy,

Thanks for getting back to me. I really appreciate it.

In the little time I have, I've found a composable way to add multicolor pictures and have been thinking about ways to make the basic picture change over time. It's simple stuff, I'm sure, but I'm learning to think in terms of composition and abstraction.

Two questions:

1. If I take out the definitions of all the code that you mark as "COMPLETE [THIS]" but leave in the docstrings and the comments (equivalent to adding the docstrings and comments to your original code), would you be interested in using this? (I'm a great believer in supporting the user so that they kill brain cells working on the point of the exercise instead of the bare mechanics.)

2. If 1) is "yes", would you like for me to integrate clj-tuple?

As always, many thanks for your work!

Best wishes,

Gregg

On Mar 14, 2015, at 6:09 PM, thattommyhall [email protected] wrote:

Hey @gw666, I can't merge it as it has answers in it :-)

I did a talk about the escher stuff for a user group a few weeks ago, which closes some of the exposition gap from just the slides, I'll send the video round soon.

I actually was unsure about using clojure vectors for the project (at the cost of some data abstraction), I like that you added make-vec but kept using the destructuring (if you were to swap out vecs for for instance more efficient tuples you would have to do at least that). Have a look if you can swap out your make-vec for one that returns a tuple https://github.com/ztellman/clj-tuple and see if everything still works.

Have a look at the interpreter project, there is a video for that coming soon too.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[thattommyhall]

@gw666

Yes to a clean docstring PR, helps with understanding.

I think the 'see if you can easily migrate to clj-tuple' is an interesting extension, so dont want to do it already (you need to change the bits where you return a value so still need to do a make-vec function, rather than returning a vec)

(defn add-vec [[x1 y1] [x2 y2]]
  [(+ x1 x2) (+ y1 y2)])

[thattommyhall]

Interesting discussion with @shterrett in the room for the blackjack project, exactly the same tension between using the abstraction given in Clojure's defrecord and/or destructuring vs the create set/get pattern advocated in the book

https://gitter.im/SICPDistilled/blackjack

[thattommyhall]

@gw666 If you want another fun bit of abstraction/composition, check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfsnlbd-4xQ