From: Claus Spitzer <DocBoobenstein@...>
Date: 2004-08-04T00:28:12+09:00
Subject: Re: Request for two methods in Array class

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:59:57 +0900, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "Request for two methods in Array class"
> >     on 04/08/03, Mike Hall <mghallNO@SPAMenteract.com> writes:
> >
> > |1. A new method, Array.combine  (needs a better name for general use).
> > |   It takes entries from two (or many) arrays and combines them.
> > |   (like a combination of Array.zip, fetch, and map)
> >
> > Sounds nice.  But I'm not sure "combine" is a proper name for the
> > method.   We need more discussion, for example:
> 
> I know I'm being the voice of possibly excessive conservatism
> here... but I'm just wondering what this method would give us, since
> we can already do zip+map.  As Ara said, it would create one less
> object.  But chaining methods always creates intermediate objects.  If
> zip+map deserves to be combined into a new, single method, what about
> flatten+map, or compact+map?  And then (flatten+map)+compact....
> 
> I realize that zip+map is more likely to be actually used, and people
> have often said they wish zip's block mapped the elements.  But I
> still wonder whether it's worth a new method and method name.
> 
> David
> 
> --
> David A. Black
> dblack@wobblini.net
> 
> 

That's a strong point. Elaborating a bit more on that, perhaps what is
needed is not a new method (or a collection of them), but a way of
piping objects instead of creating intermediate ones. Then methods
could be still chained, but with better spatial efficiency.
   -CWS