Re: Naming of Combine.Globally

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Wesley Tanaka wrote: > I believe that foldl in Haskell https://www.haskell.org/hoogle/?hoogle=foldl > admits a separate accumulator type from the type of the data structure being > "folded" > And, well, python lets you have your way

Re: Naming of Combine.Globally

...Curiously enough, ReduceFn is by far the closest of all these to a sequential fold. It is also internal (runner-facing rather than user-facing). On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:27 AM Dan Halperin wrote: > Great discussion! As Aljoscha says, Fold, Reduce, and Combine

Re: Naming of Combine.Globally

Great discussion! As Aljoscha says, Fold, Reduce, and Combine are all intertwined and not quite identical as we use them. Another simple but perhaps coy answer is that if you read the MapReduce paper by Dean and Ghemawat that started this all, they used "Map", "Reduce", and "Combine" (see section

Re: Naming of Combine.Globally

I believe that foldl in Haskell https://www.haskell.org/hoogle/?hoogle=foldl  admits a separate accumulator type from the type of the data structure being "folded" And, well, python lets you have your way with mixing types, but this certainly works as another example:python -c

Re: Naming of Combine.Globally

Hi, I think both fold and reduce fail to capture all the power or (what we call) combine. Reduce requires a function of type (T, T) -> T. It requires that the output type be the same as the input type. Fold takes a function (T, A) -> A where T is the input type and A is the accumulation type.

Naming of Combine.Globally

As I start to understand Combine.Globally, it seems that it is, in spirit, Beam's implementation of the "fold" higher-order function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_(higher-order_function)#Folds_in_various_languages Was there a reason the word "combine" was picked instead of either "fold" or