|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
Re^4: Want for a name? (between)by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Dec 11, 2013 at 19:59 UTC||Need Help??|
Too much abstract freedom? N adjacent tree nodes, N neighbouring states, etc.
Hm. I'm not convinced by that argument.
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:
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.