From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>
X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11ED27EE1A
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:34:38 +0100 (CET)
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch) identity=pra;
  client-ip=74.55.86.74;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-sender="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=74.55.86.74;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-sender="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@smtp.webfaction.com) identity=helo;
  client-ip=74.55.86.74;
  receiver=mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch";
  x-sender="postmaster@smtp.webfaction.com";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkYBAIOZuFBKN1ZKm2dsb2JhbABEhiy5eA4BAQEBAQgJFBQngh8BBSNWEAsaAiYCAkcQBhuICASsVpJ9gSKLHoMuMmEDm1gTg1+JbQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,191,1355094000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="183961588"
Received: from mail6.webfaction.com (HELO smtp.webfaction.com) ([74.55.86.74])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2012 12:34:28 +0100
Received: from [172.20.10.4] (15-233.197-178.cust.bluewin.ch [178.197.233.15])
	by smtp.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E462466E984B;
	Fri, 30 Nov 2012 05:34:24 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:34:20 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?= <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch>
To: Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>
Cc: Caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
Message-ID: <5A310828E18E4888AF71A25560727A1D@erratique.ch>
In-Reply-To: <CAPFanBFkvk35F2t75fFR4ZqU4iu3THAUpdOQ=wnDBPav-vTuEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50B822A6.7000504@emu-bark.com>
 <CAPFanBFkvk35F2t75fFR4ZqU4iu3THAUpdOQ=wnDBPav-vTuEg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: sparrow 1.6.4 (build 1178)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] List.fold_left vs. Hashtbl.fold

Le vendredi, 30 novembre 2012 =C3=A0 10:53, Gabriel Scherer a =C3=A9crit :
> My personal opinion is that currying is overrated and we
> should think about language design without currying, and with a nice
> short syntax for partial application

I'm not so sure about that. It is true that when I miss currying in other l=
anguage it's often because I want partial application, however I have the *=
impression* that currying is essential when you want to devise dsls and com=
binators that integrate naturally in the host language. But I may be wrong.

Daniel