Too much abstract freedom? N adjacent tree nodes, N neighbouring states, etc.
Hm. I'm not convinced by that argument.
- map is a piece of paper with colored lines and symbols; or the process of making one.
- reduce, is what you do to a good sauce or damaged goods.
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:
sub mapAdj(&$@) {
local( $a, $b, $c, $d, $e, $f, $g, $h, $i, $j );
my( $code, $n ) = ( shift, shift );
map $code->(
($a, $b, $c, $d, $e, $f, $g, $h, $i, $j ) = @_[ $_-$n .. $_ ]
), --$n .. $#_;
}
my @accum = mapAdj{ $a + $b + $c } 3, 1..10;
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.
|