Re: Different higher-order func notation? (was Re: RFC 23 (v1) Higher order functions)

[Glenn Linderman]

Jeremy Howard wrote:

> Damian Conway wrote:
> > Personally, if we have positional placeholders I don't see the need
> > for named ones too. But I'm willing to be convinced.

I'd agree to the contrapositive: if we have named placeholders, I don't see the
need for positional ones too.  But I'm willing to be convinced.  The below, with
positional only, is total gibberish, as Ken points out.

> Well I thought Ken Fox's earlier example was a good one:
>
> >   my $f = (^x < ^max) ? ^x * ^scale : ^y * ^scale;
> >
> > has to be called
> >
> >   &$f($x, $max, $scale, $y)
> > <...>
> > Seems better to just write $f as:
> >
> >   my $f = (^2 < ^1) ? ^2 * ^0 : ^3 * ^0;
> >
> > Alright, yeah, maybe not. That's total gibberish isn't it. ;)

--
Glenn
=====
There  are two kinds of people, those
who finish  what they start,  and  so
on...                 -- Robert Byrne



_____NetZero Free Internet Access and Email______
   http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html