Am Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014 15:52:49 UTC+2 schrieb Daniel James: > > [...] > > Great, Michael, I think we're both on the same page. > > After all that, I was ultimately arguing that it is technically incorrect > to say: > > “… trying to splice a group-by-style *transducer* into an existing > (comp ...) chain.” > (emphasis mine) > > As you can tell, I come to transducers with type-theory in mind, but I'm > actually equally interested in the the algebraic properties of transducers, > if not more so. > Ah, understood. I am using the term as in http://clojure.org/transducers, where it is defined as
A *transducer* (sometimes referred to as xform or xf) is a transformation from one reducing function to another: ;; transducer signature (whatever, input -> whatever) -> (whatever, input -> whatever) In my point of view, this is a general formulation that covers the composition of reducing functions both in a process and a reduce scenario. -- Michael -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
