This is very cool! Taken together with the following projects, Clojure now has some of the nicest parts of Haskell/ML, IMHO :)
Matchure (pattern matching): http://spin.atomicobject.com/2010/04/25/matchure-serious-clojure-pattern-matching Algebraic Data Types: http://clojure.github.com/clojure-contrib/types-api.html On Dec 17, 7:00 pm, Sunil S Nandihalli <sunil.nandiha...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
