Le 25/08/11 03:41, Joshua Juran a écrit :
On Aug 24, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
I mean this, for a ternary function f:
f(x) => doesn't call f f(x)(y) => doesn't call f f(x)(y)(z) => calls f
That last step looks asymmetric to me.
In a lazy language, f(x)(y)(z) *doesn't* call f... until you actually use the result for something... which is more consistent-looking.
I suppose the symmetrical non-lazy version looks like:
f(x) => doesn't call f f(x)(y) => doesn't call f f(x)(y)(z) => doesn't call f f(x)(y)(z)() => calls f
What about using [] for currying and () for calling?
f[x] => returns binary function f[x][y] => returns unary function f[x][y][z] => returns nullary function
All of these have the same effect:
f(x, y, z) f[x](y, z) f[x][y](z) f[x][y][z]()
I like it. This le us see a curryable as a fuctor that maps args to new functors. Which operator could reflect better this mapping tahn the subscript operator? It solves the asymetric issue and the variadic one also. Best, Vicente