more flexible partial application
wnoise at ofb.net
Thu Jan 26 12:29:25 EST 2006
On 2006-01-26, Dinko Tenev <dinko.tenev at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/06, Conor McBride <ctm at cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>> We'd do daft stuff like
>> (200 * _ ^ 2) unitsquare
> Yes, I played with a concept like that at one point, and came to the
> conclusion that it was better done with lambdas. I am all
> specifically about function application, not arbitrary expressions.
Arbitrary expressions are just function application.
>> If you do want to pull a stunt like this, you need some other funny
>> brackets which specifically indicate this binding power, and then you
>> can do grouping inside them, to create larger linear abstractions. You
>> could have something like
>> (| f (_ * 3) _ |)
> We already have lambdas for this, and they're shorter, clearer, and
> more powerful.
The same hold (except for shorter) for this whole extension, and I don't
know that "shorter" holds here.
More information about the Haskell-prime