... means that having parens for function application mostly makes it so "like things look alike"
Conversation
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!
1
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
Namespacing makes more sense for row-labels though, as opposed to argument labels. Not whether OCaml uses rows to represent labelled arguments though.
No, it's not "row polymorphism" for labels, it's more constrained than that, but simpler.
1
Right. They kind of seem like the same kind of problem - would definitely be interesting to see a language that combines them, like Clojure does with maps and labelled arguments.