On Feb 26, 5:27 pm, mikel <mev...@mac.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 10:58 am, Anand Patil <anand.prabhakar.pa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Feb 26, 4:41 pm, mikel <mev...@mac.com> wrote: > > > > Other people have explained currying and partial application, and why > > > it doesn't normally spply the feature you want. > > > I'd be interested in reading about this if you know of a link. > > What I meant was, other people have talked about it *in this > thread*. :-) As in, farther up the page. :-)
Ha! I see. :) I was hoping for a reason why these languages don't provide more general partial application in addition to currying, but that's probably available in the Wikipedia article. > Combinators are sort of interesting in themselves; it turns out that > the standard combinators S and K are Turing complete; that is, a > language consisting only of S and K is sufficient to compute anything > that can be computed (although such a language would be neither > convenient nor efficient). That's sort of surprising. That is surprising. I go now to ponder. Anand --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
