good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW |
|
PerlMonks |
Re^4: Want for a name? (between)by BrowserUk (Patriarch) |
on Dec 11, 2013 at 19:59 UTC ( [id://1066700]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Too much abstract freedom? N adjacent tree nodes, N neighbouring states, etc. Hm. I'm not convinced by that argument.
I think context and convention; along with conciseness and memorability are key here. For each element, one property is defined: the successor. Hm. Can you have a successor without a predecessor? And actually, this deals with both -- or potentially more:
And 'successor' tends to have mathematical connotations which don't apply to a list of *any*things. For the simple case of adjacent pairs, I toyed with forByTwo() :) With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom
|
|