Re: Different higher-order func notation? (was Re: RFC 23 (v1) Higher order functions)

[Ken Fox]

Mike Pastore wrote:
> Ken Fox wrote:
> > > Although, I suppose '&' would not work.
> >
> > Why not? I think it would work great.
> 
> Well, what's the different between the placeholder &foo and the sub
> &foo? That's the main reason why. Also, '&' already has a perfectly good
> meaning: binary AND with the function foo(). :) Not trying to be a
> smartass, but I think you understand what I'm trying to say.

Ha ha. ;P

Actually I was wrong about ^ not working. The binary operator ^ is XOR.
The unary "operator" ^ could be for curries.

I still like &? and &0, &1, ... best though. The common form &? is not
likely to be accidentally typed either. BTW, the number represents the
order of the argument in the function -- the arguments don't have to be
in the order they appear in the expression. The major failure of this
syntax is it doesn't allow named placeholders, only numbered. I think
being able to control the order of the arguments is more important than
naming them. If the function is so big you forget what &1 and &2
mean, then I think the curry needs a helper function.

I like ^ better than Damian's original though. (And we could add ^0, ^1,
etc. to the proposal.)

- Ken