Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > 2010/8/8 Kristopher Micinski krismicin...@gmail.com >> Did you mean we might later introduce currying syntax? Currying is at the >> core of functional languages, I don't think it should be removed. > > Since it isn't there now, it's not a question of removing it. And currying > is *not* at the core of functional languages; functional composition is. > There are many fine ways to provide that without adopting currying as the > syntax.
Do you mean the literal sense of composing functions (ala (.) in Haskell), or do you mean composition of functionality more generally? If the former, does BitC have a special (efficient, non-allocating,...) way of dealing with other common combinators like 'flip', K, W, S,...? One of the major benefits of functional programming from a practical perspective is that we can define and use these combinators in order to clean up API integration issues. Even without full support for HOFs, just providing the half-dozen basic combinators significantly reduces coding boilerplate in my experience. If you can already handle B specially, the others should be easy to do too. -- Live well, ~wren _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
