On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 19:23 -0500, Anton van Straaten wrote:
> 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 w
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 12:39 +1300, George Pollard wrote:
> 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 "pa
Anton van Straaten wrote:
Derek Elkins wrote:
> * 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"
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
conf
> 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,
> fu
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
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
2009/1/13 Peter Verswyvelen :
> On page 102: "partial function application is named currying"
> I thought "currying" or "to curry" means converting
> f :: (a,b) ->c
Confusion over these terms is commonplace. See, for example, the
discussion here: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2266
--
Dan
___
Ah. That explains my confusion. But isn't that ambiguous terminology? There
must be some reason for it to be that way?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Eugene Kirpichov wrote:
> The term 'currying' means both of these things:
> - Converting an uncurried function to a 'curriable' one
> - Partiall
The term 'currying' means both of these things:
- Converting an uncurried function to a 'curriable' one
- Partially applying a 'curriable' function
2009/1/13 Peter Verswyvelen :
> On page 102: "partial function application is named currying"
>
>
>
> I thought "currying" or "to curry" means conve
On page 102: "partial function application is named currying"
I thought "currying" or "to curry" means converting
f :: (a,b) ->c
into
g :: a -> b -> c
by applying "curry" (mmm, are Asian people good at Haskell? :-)
g = curry f
___
Haskell-
11 matches
Mail list logo
