How about: adjoin?

Too much abstract freedom? N adjacent tree nodes, N neighbouring states, etc.

You have a chain, an ordered sequence. For each element, one property is defined: the successor.

Too much abstract freedom? N adjacent tree nodes, N neighbouring states, etc.

Hm. I'm not convinced by that argument.

1. map is a piece of paper with colored lines and symbols; or the process of making one.
2. reduce, is what you do to a good sauce or damaged goods.

I think context and convention; along with conciseness and memorability are key here.

For each element, one property is defined: the successor.

Hm. Can you have a successor without a predecessor? And actually, this deals with both -- or potentially more:

sub mapAdj(&$@) {
    local( $a, $b, $c, $d, $e, $f, $g, $h, $i, $j );
    my( $code, $n ) = ( shift, shift );
    map $code->(
        ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e, $f, $g, $h, $i, $j ) = @_[ $_-$n .. $_ ]
    ), --$n .. $#_;
}

my @accum = mapAdj{ $a + $b + $c } 3, 1..10;
[download]

And 'successor' tends to have mathematical connotations which don't apply to a list of *any*things.

For the simple case of adjacent pairs, I toyed with forByTwo() :)

---

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.