On 11.12.17 17:10, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2017-12-11 15:40, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
>
>> although, with currified functions this is only an illusion
> As they say, "this".  The alternative syntax will lead to people never
> learning about partial application.
>
> Does your own language curry multiple arguments by default like Ocaml
> does?  If yes, then (IMO) your choice is a mistake, in spite of the
> (good) arguments you give for it.

Yes, it does. I consider it only as a notation, and it's a compromise
because

f x1 x2 x3 <=> ((f x1) x2) x3

doesn't work anymore as an explanation of how multiple args are
(semantically) treated. It would read

f(x1,x2,x3) <=>
  let f1 = f(x1) in
  let f2 = f1(x2) in
  f2(x3)

which works but is ugly and hides more than it explains. On the
implementation side there is no difference.

But I can live with that. This language isn't intended to be used in CS
courses, and the engineers diving deeper into it will still be happy
that partial application works out of the box.

Gerd
>
> I would be more tolerant about such syntax in a SML-like language where
> multiple arguments are modelled with tuples in most cases.
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd Stolpmann, Darmstadt, Germany    gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de
My OCaml site:          http://www.camlcity.org
Contact details:        http://www.camlcity.org/contact.html
Company homepage:       http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de
------------------------------------------------------------