Ah, my apologies, Thanks for clarifying, I should have looked more closely at your code before responding. That is indeed a very nice idea (and an aspect of Haskell that I sorely miss in Clojure).
I could see myself wanting to use this on a namespace level, e.g. have all functions defined in a namespace curryable. I'll have to look at your code when I have some time. I wonder if something like this can be practical in a language where all functions aren't unary by default. Thanks -- Eric Sunil S Nandihalli <sunil.nandiha...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Sunil S Nandihalli < > sunil.nandiha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eric, >> I do know about partial. But what I am saying is that the extra function, >> partial, is not necessary if the function was created with >> def-curry-fn....... The function automatically returns a curried version >> when called with fewer number of arguments than necessary.... like it >> happens in haskell.. >> thanks, >> Sunil. >> >> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Eric Schulte <schulte.e...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi Sunil, >>> >>> This is already possible using `partial' function in clojure core, which >>> also works for variable arity functions, e.g. >>> >>> (map (partial reduce +) [[1 2 3 4] [5 6 7 8]]) >>> >>> Best -- Eric >>> >>> Sunil S Nandihalli <sunil.nandiha...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> > Hello everybody, >>> > I remember that the key reasoning for not supporting currying in >>> clojure >>> > was to be able to have variable number of arg functions.. So, I just >>> thought >>> > a bit and realized that it should be possible to do that for fixed arity >>> > functions .. and then wrote the following macro to define a curry-able >>> > fixed-number-of-argument-function >>> > >>> > https://gist.github.com/745654 >>> > >>> >> If the following was defined as > (defn f [a b c d] > (+ a b c d)) > >> > (def-curry-fn f [a b c d] >>> > (+ a b c d)) >>> > >>> > ((f 1) 2 3 4) => 10 >>> >> the above s-expression using partial would become ... > > ((partial f 1) 2 3 4) => 10 > >> > (((f 1 2) 3) 4) => 10 >>> >> > and ((partial (partial f 1 2) 3) 4) => 10 instead of (((f 1 2) 3) 4).. > > ((((f 1) 2) 3) 4) => 10 > would become > ((partial (partial (partial f 1) 2) 3) 4) => 10 ..... > > I know there is no real practical utility .. .. it was just something I > wrote for fun.. and thought of sharing it ... > Sunil. > >> > >>> > I just thought of sharing it with everybody. Would love to hear any >>> > criticisms you may have. >>> > >>> > Thanks for reading, >>> > Sunil >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Clojure" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com >>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >>> your first post. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<clojure%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
