On Feb 27, 9:10 pm, reynard <atsan...@gmail.com> wrote: > This may be more about functional programming in general, rather than > clojure specific. However, since I mainly use clojure for learning > functional programming, I would like to discuss it here. > > Basically, I can think of the following 2 ways of doing abstraction. > I would like to hear some comments or feedback from others. Which way > do you think is better? Does this issue even matter? Or there are > better alternative ways? Thanks. > > (defn abstract-function [f x y] > (body....) > (f x y) > (body....)) > > (defn concrete-function [x y] > (abstract-function a-fun x y)) > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > (defn abstract-function [f] > (fn [x y] > (body....) > (f x y) > (body....))) > > (def concrete-function (abstract-function a-fun))
I don't think the labels "concrete" or "abstract" apply to functions very well. In both cases, abstract-function is a higher order function, but that makes it no less concrete. :) That said, both are valid approaches. The first one is a simple higher- order function, like for example map or filter in clojure.core. The second approach is is commonly used when the function returned is a "one-shot" function, that gets passed to another. That is, instead of def'ing concrete-function, you would use it like (map (abstract- function a-fn) some-seq). Examples from c.core include partial, constantly and comp. -- 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
