From: Caleb Clausen <vikkous@...>
Date: 2010-04-13T02:00:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Is it possible, a fully general Enumerable#recursive ?

> On Apr 12, 11:08 am, Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't really understand why this thread seems to be so complicated.
>> I suspect that either I am missing something or not understanding
>> properly, or other contributors to this thread are missing something.
>> :-)

I find this subject extremely confusing. Colin's answer to my last
email is still causing me puzzlement.

On 4/12/10, Intransition <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I see what the confusion is. Your version of recursive looses
> all the nested structure of the original. And so works fine for most
> cases, as long that is what one wants/expects. I've been trying to do
> it such that the nested structure stays intact. e.g.
>
>   [3,2,1,[6,5,4,[9,8,7]].recursive.sort  #=> [1,2,3,[4,5,6,[7,8,9]]
>
> Your method produces:
>
>   [3,2,1,[6,5,4,[9,8,7]].recursive.sort  #=> [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
>
> The former proves much more difficult.

Yeah, Intransition's way is what I understood to be the point of this
thread....

Intransition, how would you handle this:
  [9,8,7,[6,5,4,[3,2,1]].recursive.sort  #=> [1,2,3,[4,5,6,[7,8,9]]

Clearly possible, but I have trouble seeing how you're going to make
that happen easily.

I have often found that too much recursion is confusing. This whole
problem is going to be a lot easier if it's structured as an external
iterator first and foremost. I have an extern iterator library
(sequence) maybe I can figure out how to do this within that. (I don't
really have a good grip on how Enumerator works, myself...)