BTW, in the case of frequencies, I did find it weird at first. But also
suspiciously useful. I think the reason is... in Clojure, I really feel how
I'm constantly moving things from datastructure to datastructure. ("Duh,
that's what I constantly do in any language...") So we can imagine that a
useful operation is to map data to simple numbers somehow. What would that
operation be? Perhaps it's frequencies, which simply associates each datum
with its count.
It's like learning a vocabulary of words like "partition", "frequencies"...
These things have technical meanings which may not correspond with everyday
meanings. ("frequencies" typically evokes something wave- or hardware-like.
Or one of those boring math class things people suffered through? But when
you look at the word, it's at least about how frequently something occurs.)
Of course, I use emacs, so after a few times pressing M-., which jumps to
the docstring, it gets burned into my mind... Like suspicious jargon which
becomes natural because you're constantly saying it.
All the best,
Tj
BTW: I recall sitting in a mall waiting for someone, depressed/angry upon
realizing that to get anything done (without "ugly" code), I'd probably
have to understand partitioning of potentially infinite sequences, enough
to use it naturally without mental effort... and for some reason my mind
wasn't obliging. So I closed my eyes on the mall couch and half-dreamt of
infinite sequences... imagining the infinite sequences implicit in most
languages' for-loops, generally constrained before they have a chance to
become their own logical consequences... and then imagined some visual
metaphors for chunking down these fellows into partitions...
Yeah, it's a different point of view, and may require some dark mental
process before it's like, "Duh, just take some elements off that partition
of infinite sequences..." But I recall when I learned a for-loop to this
extent; it was a far less pleasant experience. People forget their learning
process, which seems to be a natural part of mastery. That's why few
masters can articulate a path to mastery well enough to be good teachers...
and why we expect things closely related to our masteries to be obvious
faster.
On Monday, April 15, 2013 10:12:22 AM UTC+2, Tj Gabbour wrote:
>
> Really? You may of course be right; but double-checking [1], I see:
>
--
--
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
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
