On further consideration, having partial so the arity handling in non- trivial cases is where it trumps an anonymous function.
On May 31, 2:04 am, ataggart <alex.tagg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 30, 12:58 pm, eyeris <drewpvo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The ubiquity of these anonymous functions > > in clojure code is evidence that partial application is just as needed > > in clojure as it is in haskell. > > Doesn't that depend entirely on whether or not the anonymous functions > are being used for partial application? Does every function one uses > in a list comprehension get classified as a partial application? That > would seem over-broad to me. From my novice position, it seems the > utility of partial is that I can pre-apply some args and then pass > that function along as either an arg or a return, and even then only > when the args happen to be in the right spot. If anything, I'm > inclined to think partial is a more limited, more verbose sibling of # > (). > > > > > On May 29, 10:40 pm, Vagif Verdi <vagif.ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 27, 11:57 pm, kinghajj <kingh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Example: > > > > (def add5 ($ + 5)) > > > > > (add5 3) > > > > I love partial application in haskell. But do not see the need for it > > > in clojure with its succinct syntax for anonymous functions: > > > > (def add5 #(+ 5 %1)) > > > > (add5 3) > > > > Besides clojure's anonymous function syntax allows you to replace any > > > argument, not just the last one, like your partial macro. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
