Thank you, Jesper, that's very interesting. On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 8:15:13 AM UTC-7, Jesper Louis Andersen wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Tyler Compton <xav...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I don't pretend to be proficient in this realm of functional programming, >> but I would be very surprised if this is valuable in a language like Go >> that can and does hold state. > > > In functional languages, it is often used as a way to "configure" a > function. I.e., the function is defined as > > let f conf x = ... > > where 'f' is the function name, 'conf' a parameter of configuration and > 'x' the "real" argument to the function. Now, partial application such a (f > c) for some configuration 'c', yields another function which has been > configured, or specialized, to the particular use case. > > Usually it allows you to define a generic function and then specialize it > in some context by "plugging in" a configuration. The configuration is > often a constant value which means the compiler will typically > constant-propagate that value into the closure. Many functional compilers > understand that closures with static data can be eliminated at compile time > by replacing them with a normal function. In other words, you have a > generic variant of your function, but when run it is specialized and > instantiated into an optimized variant. > > You *can* get the same with a function such as 'f(conf, x)' but in this > case, the compiler usually has some more work to do before it can apply the > above transformation. > > > > -- > J. >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
