That's interesting. I haven't learned about reductions yet—I'll check it out.
If you consider the following, (defn dot-product [v1 v2] (reduce + (map * v1 v2))) perhaps dot-product would be considered a noun, while since the reduce it is defined in terms of speaks of *how* instead of *what,* is better though of as a verb. I find the concept of the elimination of time interesting. The expression (reduce + (map * [1 2 3] [5 0 1])) brings to mind a tiny machine, while (dot-product [1 2 3] [5 0 1]) feels like a *thing*. But, they both are simply the thing: 8 and perhaps both could be evaluated at compile time, eliminating the time-based machine that mentally cranks away while reduce and map “run.” On Saturday, May 10, 2014 12:52:34 AM UTC-4, Gary Trakhman wrote: > > Never thought of it that way, I always verb the noun. > > Did you learn about reductions, yet? It's clear that the name corresponds > to the intended output at least in that case. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
