2015-12-28 23:13 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Though I'm not sure with the following one. May I ask: curried or not? >> (define (foo a b) >> (let ((x2 (lambda (arg) (* 2 arg)))) >> (map x2 (list a b)))) > > Why would that one be curried? It's completely boring, returns a list, > and its internal function x2 is totally straightforward (not even a > closure) and is invisible to the caller. > > Slightly more interesting is > > (define (fie a) > (lambda (x) (+ x a))) > > which is equivalent to the curried definition > > (define ((fie a) x) (+ x a)) > > However, the currying is not a feature of the semantics (the semantics > of returning a function or more often a closure, namely a function with > an environment in the form of variables imported into its scope) but of > the syntax. > > So while the second definition of fie is a curried definition, the first > equivalent definition isn't. > > -- > David Kastrup
Indeed interesting. Thanks again, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
