On Jun 17, 5:45 pm, Wrexsoul <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 17, 2:47 pm, Kyle Schaffrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As a friendly suggestion, I'd like to offer that perhaps the derision is > > caused not by the fact that you had the initiative to implement it > > yourself, but rather by such phrasing as: > > > > I'm shocked that [reduce/accum/foldr] is missing from clojure.core. > > > [...] This is one of the most basic, useful functions in functional > > > programming. > > > This seems to assert *as fact* that it is missing > > Well *something* was certainly missing, or I would have found it. You > can't reasonably claim I was lax in my search efforts in this > instance. > reduce/foldl is called some variant of either reduce or fold in the majority of languages in which it appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_(higher-order_function) Anyone who is going to make claims about it being one of the basics of functional programming should know that. Certainly it's been called reduce in Lisp for decades. The only language in which it is called anything like 'accum' is C++, the least functional of the bunch. reduce is also mentioned twice in the very short page on sequences: http://clojure.org/sequences The only thing that was missing was thoroughness, and a willingness to ask, on your part. Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
