Talk:First-class functions: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
:"make that a list of functions by composing each pair". Maybe this craziness does it: <tt>(+)*p\</tt>. That snippet comes after the gang command. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
:"make that a list of functions by composing each pair". Maybe this craziness does it: <tt>(+)*p\</tt>. That snippet comes after the gang command. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Nope, check out [[Functional Composition#Ursala]]. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
:Nope, check out [[Functional Composition#Ursala]]. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
I've added some commentary on functional composition. The <code>+</code> operator used here is the idiomatic way of expressing composition, whereas the definition in [[Functional Composition#Ursala]] is written the way it is to comply with that task specification. The cube function is user-created and the cube root function is a library function, since this task specification says to use one of each. What's the problem? -- [[User:Sluggo|Sluggo]] |
|||