Anonymous user
Talk:Partial function application: Difference between revisions
→Explicit curry vs Partial application: More on distinguishing partial plain curry.
(Common Lisp.) |
(→Explicit curry vs Partial application: More on distinguishing partial plain curry.) |
||
Line 31:
:There is not much reason to write <tt>(partial #'mapcar #'f1)</tt> instead of <tt>(lambda (s) (mapcar #'f1 s))</tt>. This would be like writing <tt>sum((2, 3))</tt> instead of <tt>2 + 3</tt> in Python. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 02:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
:: Is it the case that there is no real distinction in Lisp, but a significant distinction in other languages?
::What about the other feature I seem to see in partial application: that of not needing to refer explicitely to the other arguments of the function being partially applied? E.g. with function f(a,b,c,d); you can partial(f, a=value1) to produce f'(b,c,d) without mention of b, c, and d when ''calling'' partial. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
| |||