• Mike Parker (12/12) Oct 07 2015 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from
• Big Daddy (2/14) Oct 07 2015 eager
• Jonathan M Davis (4/20) Oct 07 2015 Eager is far more general. Also, while the drop* functions are
• Joseph Rushton Wakeling (11/13) Oct 10 2015 I don't recall the precise details of these particular ranges off
• =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= (3/14) Oct 07 2015 Something like shortening, minimizing?
• Andrea Fontana (2/5) Oct 07 2015 Slicing?
• Jonathan M Davis (5/11) Oct 07 2015 Similar, but that's already a pretty overloaded term, and neither
• Gerald Jansen (3/7) Oct 07 2015 Partitioning?
• Mike Parker (2/4) Oct 07 2015 How about reductive?
• DLangLearner (2/8) Oct 07 2015 subtractive
• =?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= (3/9) Oct 07 2015 That's what I had in mind when I started thesaurusing for the other two....
• drug (2/13) Oct 07 2015 Specifying?
• Meta (2/14) Oct 07 2015 Mutating.
• Jonathan M Davis (5/21) Oct 07 2015 Except that take doesn't mutate its function argument, and drop
• H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d (6/27) Oct 07 2015 [...]
• Meta (5/9) Oct 07 2015 Yeah, true. Partitioning or Isolating, something along those
• The Great one (2/12) Oct 07 2015 Needy
• Jonathan M Davis (6/18) Oct 07 2015 If it were just take, then maybe "bounding" would work, and I
• qznc (5/17) Oct 07 2015 Selective
• Mike Parker (10/14) Oct 07 2015 I actually agree with you about iterative, but I hadn't
• Mike Parker (4/5) Oct 07 2015 Thanks for the brainstorming session everyone. I'm on a deadline
• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (18/25) Oct 09 2015 I'm guessing you're thinking about categorizing the list at
• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (2/4) Oct 09 2015 "Software Visualization" seems to be the correct research term.
• Mike Parker (7/13) Oct 09 2015 This is for the "Learning D" book I'm currently doing revisions
• Jonathan M Davis (12/19) Oct 09 2015 I can certainly understand trying to categorize ranges like this,

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from 
take and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate 
categories for other types of ranges:

Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
XXX - take, drop

What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but that 
has an association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't really 
like. That led to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not that 
appropriate. Beyond that, I'm stuck. Any and all ideas 
appreciated.

Big Daddy <Nope nopeagainst.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from 
 take and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate 
 categories for other types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

 What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but that 
 has an association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't really 
 like. That led to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not that 
 appropriate. Beyond that, I'm stuck. Any and all ideas 
 appreciated.

eager

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:13:17 UTC, Big Daddy wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from 
 take and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate 
 categories for other types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

 What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but 
 that has an association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't 
 really like. That led to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not 
 that appropriate. Beyond that, I'm stuck. Any and all ideas 
 appreciated.

 eager

Eager is far more general. Also, while the drop* functions are 
eager, the take* functions are not.

- Jonathan M Davis

Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:39:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
 Eager is far more general. Also, while the drop* functions are 
 eager, the take* functions are not.

I don't recall the precise details of these particular ranges off 
the top of my head (away from computer so can't easily check), 
but one nasty little detail of supposedly lazy ranges is that 
they are often eager for the first element, lazy thereafter -- 
and even there it's subtly different from 'true' laziness 
inasmuch as the new values are generated at the point of popping 
rather than the point of access to the new front.

In most cases that's an implementation detail, but it gets _very_ 
interesting when the elements of your range are non-deterministic.

=?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 10/07/2015 08:06 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from take and
 drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate categories for other
 types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

 What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but that has an
 association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't really like. That led
 to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not that appropriate. Beyond that, I'm
 stuck. Any and all ideas appreciated.

Something like shortening, minimizing?

Ali

Andrea Fontana <nospam example.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:43:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 10/07/2015 08:06 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
 Something like shortening, minimizing?

 Ali

Slicing?

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:46:00 UTC, Andrea Fontana 
wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:43:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 10/07/2015 08:06 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
 Something like shortening, minimizing?

 Ali

 Slicing?

Similar, but that's already a pretty overloaded term, and neither 
take nor drop requires that a range support slicing.

- Jonathan M Daivs

Gerald Jansen <gjansen ownmail.net> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:46:00 UTC, Andrea Fontana 
wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:43:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 10/07/2015 08:06 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
 Something like shortening, minimizing?

 Slicing?

Partitioning?

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:43:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 Something like shortening, minimizing?

 Ali

How about reductive?

DLangLearner <DLangLearner gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 16:15:13 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:43:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 Something like shortening, minimizing?

 Ali

 How about reductive?

subtractive

=?UTF-8?Q?Ali_=c3=87ehreli?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 10/07/2015 09:15 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:43:44 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 Something like shortening, minimizing?

 Ali

 How about reductive?

That's what I had in mind when I started thesaurusing for the other two. :)

Ali

drug <drug2004 bk.ru> writes:

On 07.10.2015 18:06, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from take and
 drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate categories for other
 types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

 What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but that has an
 association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't really like. That led
 to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not that appropriate. Beyond that, I'm
 stuck. Any and all ideas appreciated.

Specifying?

Meta <jared771 gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from 
 take and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate 
 categories for other types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

 What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but that 
 has an association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't really 
 like. That led to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not that 
 appropriate. Beyond that, I'm stuck. Any and all ideas 
 appreciated.

Mutating.

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 16:54:00 UTC, Meta wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from 
 take and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate 
 categories for other types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

 What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but 
 that has an association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't 
 really like. That led to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not 
 that appropriate. Beyond that, I'm stuck. Any and all ideas 
 appreciated.

 Mutating.

Except that take doesn't mutate its function argument, and drop 
only does if the range is a reference type. So, they really 
aren't mutating algorithms.

- Jonathan M Davis

"H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 05:15:45PM +0000, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 16:54:00 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from take
and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate categories
for other types of ranges:

Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
XXX - take, drop

What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but that has
an association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't really like.
That led to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not that appropriate.
Beyond that, I'm stuck. Any and all ideas appreciated.

Mutating.

 
 Except that take doesn't mutate its function argument, and drop only
 does if the range is a reference type. So, they really aren't mutating
 algorithms.

[...]

Sub-ranging?


T

-- 
A program should be written to model the concepts of the task it performs
rather than the physical world or a process because this maximizes the
potential for it to be applied to tasks that are conceptually similar and, more
important, to tasks that have not yet been conceived. -- Michael B. Allen

Meta <jared771 gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 17:15:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
 Except that take doesn't mutate its function argument, and drop 
 only does if the range is a reference type. So, they really 
 aren't mutating algorithms.

 - Jonathan M Davis

Yeah, true. Partitioning or Isolating, something along those 
lines seems more descriptive I guess, as that's technically what 
you're doing.

The Great one <thegreatone google.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 18:09:51 UTC, Meta wrote:
 On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 17:15:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:
 Except that take doesn't mutate its function argument, and 
 drop only does if the range is a reference type. So, they 
 really aren't mutating algorithms.

 - Jonathan M Davis

 Yeah, true. Partitioning or Isolating, something along those 
 lines seems more descriptive I guess, as that's technically 
 what you're doing.

Needy

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from 
 take and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate 
 categories for other types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

 What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but that 
 has an association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't really 
 like. That led to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not that 
 appropriate. Beyond that, I'm stuck. Any and all ideas 
 appreciated.

If it were just take, then maybe "bounding" would work, and I 
guess that _technically_ that works with drop as well, but it 
seems kind of off to talk about bounding when the bounds are 
everything _but_ a small number of elements.

- Jonathan M Davis

qznc <qznc web.de> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from 
 take and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate 
 categories for other types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

 What to put into the XXX? I first thought of "Greedy", but that 
 has an association with "greedy algorithms" that I don't really 
 like. That led to "Selfish", but it's admittedly not that 
 appropriate. Beyond that, I'm stuck. Any and all ideas 
 appreciated.

Selective

Although, then stride fits better into Selective than into 
Iterative. On the other hand, iterative seems not that fitting to 
me. lockstep might also be Compositional.

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 18:26:29 UTC, qznc wrote:
 Selective

 Although, then stride fits better into Selective than into 
 Iterative. On the other hand, iterative seems not that fitting 
 to me. lockstep might also be Compositional.

I actually agree with you about iterative, but I hadn't 
considered changing it until I read this. IIRC, I picked the name 
based on the documentation. All three of the listed ranges use 
"Iterates" in the short description. I also included zip in that 
category because it's akin to lockstep, despite the intuition 
that it should be considered compositional.

Anyway, I'm not looking to establish any conventions here, just 
an easy way to describe ranges. This thread has helped a good 
deal.

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 What to put into the XXX?

Thanks for the brainstorming session everyone. I'm on a deadline 
so I need to pick something and go with it. This thread has 
simplified things for me.

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 15:06:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 I'm looking for ideas on how to label the ranges returned from 
 take and drop. Some examples of what I think are appropriate 
 categories for other types of ranges:

 Generative - iota, recurrence, sequence
 Compositional - chain, roundRobin, transposed
 Iterative - retro, stride, lockstep
 XXX - take, drop

I'm guessing you're thinking about categorizing the list at

http://dlang.org/phobos/std_range.html

, right? ;)

That would, IMHO, be a nice usability/discoverability 
improvement, especially for new users!

:)

Further, I've thought about adding some kind standardized 
graphical explanation for the ranges and algorithms in Phobos.

I've Googled a bit on this topic, say:

"algorithm visualization"

but I can't seem to find any concrete work on this topic. Refs 
ideas anyone?

What file format would be preferred for such graphical 
descriptions? I'm guessing SVG would be a good contender.

A supercool thing would be if we, with the help of D's marvellous 
meta-programming and CT/RT-reflection, could auto-generate these 
visualizations.

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 9 October 2015 at 10:01:47 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
 I've Googled a bit on this topic, say:

 "algorithm visualization"

"Software Visualization" seems to be the correct research term.

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 9 October 2015 at 10:01:47 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:

 I'm guessing you're thinking about categorizing the list at

 http://dlang.org/phobos/std_range.html

 , right? ;)

 That would, IMHO, be a nice usability/discoverability 
 improvement, especially for new users!

 :)

This is for the "Learning D" book I'm currently doing revisions 
on. In the chapter on std.range and std.algorithm, there was an 
imbalance with the latter being neatly categorized into the 
different modules. It looked odd having the std.range stuff all 
lumped under one section heading. One of the technical reviewers 
(rightly) didn't like my initial "Selfish" category, and I agree.

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Friday, 9 October 2015 at 16:08:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 This is for the "Learning D" book I'm currently doing revisions 
 on. In the chapter on std.range and std.algorithm, there was an 
 imbalance with the latter being neatly categorized into the 
 different modules. It looked odd having the std.range stuff all 
 lumped under one section heading. One of the technical 
 reviewers (rightly) didn't like my initial "Selfish" category, 
 and I agree.

I can certainly understand trying to categorize ranges like this, 
but at the same time, it seems like there's such a range of 
things - pun intended :) - that they can do that it quickly 
becomes about as tenable to categorize ranges as it does to 
categorize _all_ functions, which is pretty questionable IMHO. In 
general, I don't think I'd even bother trying to categorize them 
except to the extent required to figure out which package or 
module to stuff them in (like you have to do with any function), 
but it can be more important to categorize stuff in a teaching 
setting.

- Jonathan M Davis