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
> (c
Am Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014 15:01:51 UTC+2 schrieb Daniel James:
>
> [...]
> Your function is good for use with `reduce`, but only that. I hope I’ve
> helped build an intuition for why it’s actually impossible to implement
> ‘group by’ as a transducer.
>
This is correct. Unlike you, I am ex
Correction after actually trying it out:
In this case you might prefer to write something like (transduce xform
> (comp group-by-xf +) ...) instead
> of (transduce (comp xform group-by-xf) + ...) . [...]
>
The first variant must use a valid rf, and needs to be written
as (transduce xform ((group
Am Freitag, 17. Oktober 2014 04:02:52 UTC+2 schrieb Daniel James:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I’m glad you are in favor of this change; however, and with tongue firmly
> in cheek, you’ve taken a beautiful thing and corrupted it, which I can’t
> condone. ;)
>
> Let me offer an explanation as to why I half
Am Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2014 18:34:39 UTC+2 schrieb Daniel James:
>
> [...]
> In my proposal above, nothing is changing about the fact that transducers
> transform reducing functions to new reducing functions. The simple change
> is to use the reducing function that is produced by a transformati
