I don't know why the word functor was originally used in Julia for
function-like type, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the
functional programming / haskell / category theory functor (or any
particular relevance to monads). Might be a good idea to use a different
term since it
On Feb 4, 2015, at 11:04 , Mike Innes mike.j.in...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know why the word functor was originally used in Julia for
function-like type, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the
functional programming / haskell / category theory functor (or any particular
I don't know why the word functor was originally used in Julia for
function-like type, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the
functional programming / haskell / category theory functor (or any
particular relevance to monads). Might be a good idea to use a different
term since it
The idiom that seems to be used most commonly in Base is a closure around a
variable hidden in a let scope. Note that your function must be declared
global. See base/combinatorics.jl:L361-L380
On Feb 3, 2015, at 20:30 , Erik Schnetter schnet...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2015, at 20:22 , Peter Simon psimon0...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, I will take a look at functors when I upgrade to 0.4.
I didn't see this before. Here's another approach, without objects; it's
functional and very
I saw a suggestion from Miles Lubin
in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-opt/z8Ld4-kdvCI for
avoiding redundant calculations that appeared to involve saving state
between function calls, and I wonder what is the standard Julian way to do
this. I'm asking here because this seems to
