Change ordering of fn.reduce arguments?

[jpotterm]

I think it would be beneficial to move the accumulator to be the second argument to fn.reduce:

fn.reduce(handler, accumulator, collection)

This would let us do things like:

var sum = fn.partial(fn.reduce, fn.op['+'], 0);
var product = fn.partial(fn.reduce, fn.op['*'], 1);

I think it makes sense to have the accumulator near the handler because it is almost always the identity value of the function being used to accumulate.

If you think this is a good idea, I'd be happy to submit a pull request with this change.

[eliperelman]

At first glance, I do believe that this would be a good change. Does anyone else have any reservations for making this breaking change? If not, then I'd say go ahead with the implementation.

[dillonforrest]

I agree with this change. For what it's worth, that's also the way Clojure implements reduce: http://clojuredocs.org/clojure_core/clojure.core/reduce

[CrossEye]

+1. Definitely the most appropriate order.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Dillon Forrest notifications@github.comwrote:

I agree with this change. For what it's worth, that's also the way Clojure implements reduce: http://clojuredocs.org/clojure_core/clojure.core/reduce

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/eliperelman/fn.js/issues/12#issuecomment-37237573 .

[eliperelman]

Great, if someone would like to submit a pull request, I'd be happy to review it.

[eliperelman]

This is now in 0.7.0. Remember that this is a breaking change, so upgrading will mean needing to change the order of fn.reduce arguments. Thanks everyone!