Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
The problem I have with these suggestions are that you're basically
arguing for an incredibly inflexible, context-dependant, completely
unintuitive syntax for something you already have working syntax for. I
just don't see the point.
I'd agree that generally there's a strong bias in this group for adding
to the language. Every itsy-bitsy issue comes around, there are a dozen
cute syntaxes invented for it right on the spot. And then once every few
months, there's the inevitable huge thread "Where did my simple language
go???" :o)
Currying/binding can be done easily with a library, and the
implementation is so simple there's no need for a separate file
dedicated to it. The one interesting case is currying a function passed
by alias. In that case there's no indirect call, just a little struct
created that contains the curried state:
int plus(int x, int y} { return x + y; }
auto plus5 = curry!(plus)(5);
assert(plus5(10) == 15);
typeof(plus5) will be a little struct that may be cumbersome to pass
around, in which case you do want to take the toll of the indirect call
by writing:
auto plus5 = makeDelegate(curry!(plus)(5));
assert(is(typeof(plus5) == int delegate(int));
assert(plus5(10) == 15);
This stuff belongs to std.functional. I plan to eliminate std.bind and
put currying and binding in std.functional. What do people think?
How do you curry on the second argument?
