Henrik Nilsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just like chatter and chattee, employer and employee, there is an > > iterator (usually as part of an enumerator/ee) and an iteratee. > > Thanks for the attempt to explain. But I, at least, remain mystified, > and I agree with Douglas that the terminology is confusing. > > Usually, the relationship between word-pairs such as the ones above is > pretty obvious, typically implying some kind of subordinate > relationship. For example: > > * employer: the one employing > employee: the one employed > > * tutor: the one teaching, instructing, providing care > tutee: the one receiving instruction, care > > * caller: that which is calling > callee: that which is being called > > And so on. > > The above would suggest that "iterator" would be something that > iterates over something, and that "iteratee" would be (an element of) > that being iterated over.
You are right. In that case it really doesn't make sense. However, one way to make sense of this is that the iteratee is indeed being iterated over. Consider that the iteratee /contains/ the stream. The stream isn't fed from outside, because the enumerator itself is an iteratee and that one creates the stream in the first place. > However, no such simple relationship seems to emerge from the > provided explanation. > > I also had a look at John Millikin's page on Understanding Iteratees, > which is very good: > > https://john-millikin.com/articles/understanding-iteratees/ > > But, the intuition that comes across there is: > > * iteratee: a stream (of sorts) consumer > > * enumerator: a stream (of sorts) producer > > * enumeratee: a stream (of sorts) transformer > > And "iterator" isn't mentioned at all. That's because the iterator isn't part of the system at all. You bring in the iterator from outside. For example a loop reading chunks from a file is an iterator. That iterator is used inside of an enumerator, which is itself an iteratee that transforms another iteratee (in that it handles the Continue state). > I might be missing something, but the terminology is hardly crystal > clear. Which is a pity! That's true, but on the other hand personally I wouldn't know how to improve it without giving a wrong intuition. Coroutines actually capture this kind of composition (where some code interrupts itself to hand control over to some other code) very well. Perhaps it would be better to use terms from that abstraction instead. In fact, iteratees are a special case of coroutines. Greets, Ertugrul -- nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex) http://ertes.de/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
