Anonymous user
Talk:Partial function application: Difference between revisions
→What is partial application?: new section
(→Is Scala correct?: re) |
(→What is partial application?: new section) |
||
Line 334:
::: Using common sense and discussion? I don't think the task should be overspecified either. For example, specifying that you have to define a function similar to Python's <code>partial</code> would rule out ML's and Haskell's implicit partial application or perhaps a clever, but reasonable, trick involving C's preprocessor or C++'s templates. On the other hand, the current Java implementation might follow the the task to the letter, but certainly violates the spirit as it's not applicable to idiomatically defined functions from the standard library. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
== What is partial application? ==
It occurred to me that when one speaks of "partial application" one can refer to several distinct things:
# The ''syntactic sugar'' that allows one to write <code>map (f 7 9) [1..9]</code> or <code>map(f(7,_,9),{1,...,9})</code> instead of <code>map (lambda x: f 7 9 x) [1..9]</code> or <code>def g(x): return f(7,9,x); end def in map(g,(1..9))</code>.
# The ''higher-order function'' <code>functools.partial</code>.
# The ''compilation technique'' that allows function thunks or closures to be "partially applied" instead of only unapplied or fully applied.
The task here should probably be about the first, perhaps also the second. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
| |||