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)
|
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