[Haskell-cafe] Haskell's "currying" versus Business Objects Gem Cutter's "burning"

[peterv]

In Haskell, currying can only be done on the last (rightmost) function
arguments.

 

So 

 

foo x y

 

can be curried as 

 

foo x

 

but not as 

 

foo ? y

 

where ? would be a "wilcard" for the x parameter.

 

In Haskell, one must write a new function

 

foo2  y x = foo x y

 

and then one can curry the x parameter like

 

foo2 y

 

In Gem Cutter - which is a visual programming language - on can "burn" any
input argument (which is like putting the ? for any argument in the foo
function). See
http://resources.businessobjects.com/labs/cal/gemcutter-techpaper.pdf

 

This burning looks more general to me, but cannot be done using the textual
approach?

 

Does this reasoning make any sense? 

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20070703/f67be987/attachment.htm