Ask HN: Does the idea of a "reduce-map" function make any sense?
I'm looking for a name for this concept, and wondered whether "reduce-map" would be a good one - maybe I could say that I reduce the document to a function, which returns a map (the formated string). To find out whether a "reduce-map" moniker had any currency, and if it did, in which context, I googled program "reduce-map":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=program+%22reduce-map%22
But due to the fact that Google doesn't search for an exact string or substring even if you format it using doublequotes (which it does seem to promise; compare 'M.I.A.'s album "/\/\/\Y/\" is ungoogleable', http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1363489 ), what I got back was a slew of ordinary map-reduce tutorials. So I still don't know whether "reduce-map" would mean to other people what I want it to mean. I would be thankful for your take on that.
[+] [-] rarestblog|16 years ago|reply
Other than that, here are unclear parts:
"to a hierarchy of pattern matchers, looking for and extracting certain values and their relations"
What are the "certain values" and how are they "related"?
"takes these values and relations and knows how to distribute these data to the appropriate subfunctions"
What are those "appropriate subfunctions", what do they do? How do they differ for function to "know" where to send each one?
The concept of "reduce-map" doesn't seem to make any sense to me. It's like taking a word frequency (output of MapReduce) and building original text with that? You just don't have data to do that.
BTW. Google searches for doublequoted "reduce map" just fine, it's just that there's no such thing as "reduce map". You collect some data and output it piece by piece ("map"), then you aggregate it by key ("reduce"). "Map" often works as a "splitter" or a "tokenizer", it won't make sense to supply aggregated data ("reduced") to it, since aggregate data is already "tokenized".
[+] [-] dhs|16 years ago|reply