On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 11:46 -0600, Derek Elkins wrote: > No, it means exactly what you said it means. People abuse it to mean > the second sense. Those people are wrong and there is already a term > for that second sense, namely "partial application." I really wish > people would stop conflating these terms*, all it does is create > confusion. > > To Eugene: The suggested meaning of "curriable", namely "able to be > curried," does not make sense. curry takes an uncurried function to a > curried form. > > * A related annoyance is people who talk about languages "supporting > currying and/or partial application." Unless one means that the > language supports higher order functions at all by that, it doesn't make > any sense. Haskell has no "support" for currying or partial > application. The fact that most functions are in curried form in > Haskell is merely a convention (with, admittedly strong -social- > ramifications.) The only way one could say Haskell "supports" currying > is that it has a lightweight notation for nested lambdas.
I’d almost say that there is no such thing as partial application in Haskell. Since every: > f ∷ a → b → c is really: > f ∷ a → (b → c) there are no multiple arguments to be applied ‘partially’, only a function ‘f’ that takes one argument and gives you another, anonymous, function. - George
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
