Cc @ubsanitizer.
Regarding alt syntax: not trivial right now (doable, but also needs to consider issues like ecosystem integration), but will get better in the future. Stay tuned
Conversation
Sweet. Would be interesting to see how people react to comparisons if they could easily switch between them!
3
imo, having function application use parens instead of a space introduces a lot of syntactic niceties - Foo(Bar(Baz), Bloop, fip + fop) looks nicer to my eyes than Foo (Bar Baz) Bloop (fip + fop)
Plus, OCaml's oddities around type application and variants being uncurried...
2
3
... means that having parens for function application mostly makes it so "like things look alike"
1
I'd probably prefer it if uncurried things looked uncurried, and curried things looked curried, rather than pretending either way.
4
1
in general, I just try not to think about currying :P
1
1
What's the difference between OCaml and a language with no currying, but that supports effortless partial application? The lines get blurry.
1
well, those languages with effortless partial application generally allow unordered partial application:
(Perl)
```
my $f = bloop(5, *)
```
1
1
So does "Reason" with named arguments!
1
2
does it really? Nice! (I can't say I've used named arguments much...)
1
Yup, named arguments are a pretty interesting solution to the problem Rich Hickey's has with currying. They aren't name-spaced, so they aren't a full solution, but still cool!
what could possibly be improved by namespacing? Right now they're light weight, free form and ad hoc. Not bad.
1
What happens if you compose two of them together, and they use the same names?
2
1
Show replies