New names for some operations taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (13 Sep 2015 12:13 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations John Cowan (13 Sep 2015 19:01 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (13 Sep 2015 20:19 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations John Cowan (13 Sep 2015 22:20 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (14 Sep 2015 08:29 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations Shiro Kawai (13 Sep 2015 23:28 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations John Cowan (13 Sep 2015 23:45 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations Shiro Kawai (13 Sep 2015 19:27 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (13 Sep 2015 20:04 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations John Cowan (13 Sep 2015 20:11 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations Shiro Kawai (13 Sep 2015 20:25 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (13 Sep 2015 21:46 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (14 Sep 2015 09:39 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Sep 2015 19:42 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (13 Sep 2015 19:57 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations Arthur A. Gleckler (14 Sep 2015 03:25 UTC)
Re: New names for some operations John Cowan (14 Sep 2015 03:38 UTC)

Re: New names for some operations taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 13 Sep 2015 21:46 UTC

Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:11 AM, John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org>
> wrote:
>
>     The difference between reduce and fold is that the seed value is
>     used only when the sequence being reduced is zero-length: it does
>     not participate in the "normal" operations.
>
> Hm, if it's the consensus, then it implies reduction function is
> indeed to be expected a -> a -> a (having the element and accumulated
> value are of the same type), and my suggestion loses the point.
> Taylan, you may want to hold the change until we discuss more.

Indeed, I'll hold back.  Need to think more about this.

Taylan