On 03/16/2012 05:45 AM, Ray Song wrote:
I confess i've indulged in Haskell and found
f a
more readable than
f(a)
And why aren't functions curried (partially applied function is another
function which takes the rest arguments) by default?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
--
Ra
On 3/16/2012 9:14 AM, bruno.desthuilli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:45 pm, Ray Song wrote:
I confess i've indulged in Haskell and found
f a
more readable than
f(a)
Hmmm... What about:
f a b
versus
f(a(b))
or was it supposed to be read as
f(a)(b)
or as
16.03.12 23:02, Chris Rebert написав(ла):
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
lambda:f
Doesn't help; wouldn't the lambda be implicitly called?
No, the lambda is only for declaration. I prefer to use braces for
lambda syntax, it will be fine with 'if' and 'while' functi
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> 16.03.12 18:45, Steven D'Aprano написав(ла):
>> If f is a function which normally takes (for the sake of the argument)
>> one argument, then f would call the function with no arguments (which may
>> return a curried function, or may apply
16.03.12 18:45, Steven D'Aprano написав(ла):
If f is a function which normally takes (for the sake of the argument)
one argument, then f would call the function with no arguments (which may
return a curried function, or may apply default arguments, or perhaps
raise an exception). So how would you
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:31:06 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't, because Haskel's way is more regular and makes a lot of
>> sense: parentheses are for grouping and that's it.
>
> If f is a function which normally takes (for the sake of
On 3/16/2012 17:45, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:31:06 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
You wouldn't, because Haskel's way is more regular and makes a lot of
sense: parentheses are for grouping and that's it.
If f is a function which normally takes (for the sake of the argument)
one argu
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:31:06 +0100, Kiuhnm wrote:
> You wouldn't, because Haskel's way is more regular and makes a lot of
> sense: parentheses are for grouping and that's it.
If f is a function which normally takes (for the sake of the argument)
one argument, then f would call the function with
On 3/16/2012 17:13, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
I confess i've indulged in Haskell and found
f a
more readable than
f(a)
Hmmm... What about:
f a b
versus
f(a(b))
or was it supposed to be read as
f(a)(b)
or as
f(a, b)
?-)
That would be
f (a b)
On 3/16/12 12:45 PM, Ray Song wrote:
I confess i've indulged in Haskell and found
f a
more readable than
f(a)
And why aren't functions curried (partially applied function is another
function which takes the rest arguments) by default?
Python isn't a strongly functional language. We
> >> I confess i've indulged in Haskell and found
> >> f a
> >> more readable than
> >> f(a)
> >
> > Hmmm... What about:
> >
> > f a b
> >
> > versus
> >
> > f(a(b))
> >
> > or was it supposed to be read as
> >
> > f(a)(b)
> >
> >
> > or as
> >
> > f(a, b)
> >
> > ?-)
>
On 3/16/2012 14:14, bruno.desthuilli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 1:45 pm, Ray Song wrote:
I confess i've indulged in Haskell and found
f a
more readable than
f(a)
Hmmm... What about:
f a b
versus
f(a(b))
or was it supposed to be read as
f(a)(b)
or as
f(
On 16/03/2012 8:45 AM, Ray Song wrote:
I confess i've indulged in Haskell and found
f a
more readable than
f(a)
And why aren't functions curried (partially applied function is another
function which takes the rest arguments) by default?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
--
Ray
On Mar 16, 1:45 pm, Ray Song wrote:
> I confess i've indulged in Haskell and found
> f a
> more readable than
> f(a)
Hmmm... What about:
f a b
versus
f(a(b))
or was it supposed to be read as
f(a)(b)
or as
f(a, b)
?-)
> And why aren't functions curried (partially
14 matches
Mail list logo
