On Friday 2004-02-20 12:32, David Abrahams wrote: [I said:] > > 1. "Turning a function that takes a single tuple argument into > > one that takes multiple arguments." > > > > 2. "Turning a function that takes it arguments all at once into > > one that takes them one at a time." > > > > According to #1, what PEP309 calls currying is no such thing. > > According to #2, what PEP309 calls currying *is* currying. > > > > It looks to me as if the second usage is the dominant one, in > > which case I think PEP309 is fine. > > I don't see how you can make that claim. Curry is a one argument > function that accepts a function and returns a new function; I hope > we can agree on that. If this were currying according to your > description, the result would always be callable with a single > argument (yielding, perhaps, another function object). Yow. I've just read PEP309, which (to my shame) I hadn't done when reading your original comment. I thought I could tell from your comments how PEP309 was using the term "currying". I was completely wrong; I misunderstood what you were protesting about, and I now agree: PEP309 misuses the term "curry". > Even if we ignore the syntax issues I brought up earlier, this doesn't > appear to resemble what you've been describing at all. No, you're right. Oops. -- g
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4