From: Colin Bartlett <colinb2r@...>
Date: 2010-04-11T21:51:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Is it possible, a fully general Enumerable#recursive ?

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Intransition <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 6:38 pm, Colin Bartlett <colin...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure that it is a bug. ...
>
> Thanks, that helped me understand a little better.
>
> After working on this for far too long, I have concluded that a highly
> generalized implementation of recursion for all (or at least most)
> enumerable methods not feasible.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/feasible?view=uk
  feasible: adjective 1 possible and practical to achieve easily or
conveniently. 2 informal likely.
I think that's the precise word: I'd concluded that it was probably possible,
but probably too complicated, and I was having difficulties getting things
to work with "to_enum" in a consistent way, or indeed sometime at all.
(For example, a recursive Array#map! worked, but a recursive Array#map didn't.)

> But there are still many things in common between recursion methods,
> so instead I have created a Recursor class
> to act something like an Enumerator for recursive operations.
The idea of having a Recursor class hadn't occurred to me,
and that seems (at first thoughts) quite possibly fruitful as a solution.