in reply to Re^2: Want for a name? (Final thoughts; strong feelings; votes?)
in thread Want for a name?

Thanks for your thoughtful review.


Sounds like OAPs complaining that their tea'n'chat session are getting later and later .... :) But yes, it's too long.


Map adjacent; map adjoining; map adjunct; all of those work.

Since salva pointed out the scala version, I keep looking again at slide/sliding; but they make me think of sliding scales & sliding checksum, neither of which are appropriate here.

As I said elsewhere, many function names (and keywords) do not mean much unless you know what they mean in the context of a computer program.

Take reduce or join or grep or splice. Write the functionality of any of those out in full:

take_a_list_of_values_convert_them_to_their_string_representations_if_ +necessary_intersperse_them_with_this_other_string_and_return_a_single +_string_formed_from_them_all( "\t", @nums);

And it would be ridiculous.

You only know what grep does, because you learnt it, not from the name, so the key things are to be vaguely mnemonic and memorable, and preferably short.

I'm more and more persuaded by overlap & overmap.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.