Much better said. :)
Put my foot in my mouth. I was vaguely accusative where I intended to allude to comprehension.
There are certain basic connections that had not really ever gelled prior to reading some of your posts. For example, that function application itself is obviously a fixed point had me slapping my forehead.
Much taken for granted in my day to day work.
Cheers,
Darren
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Darren Grant <dedgrant@gmail.com> wrote:On Dec 20, 2015 08:39, "Rustom Mody" <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:Lacking intentional syntax for function application is much more profound than I would have expected.On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Rein Henrichs <rein.henrichs@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. McIlroy,
FWIW I would love to read more about that McCarthy talk. It
sounds like an amazing experience.
No I was not there (in more than one sense!) when that talk happened
About the power of scheme being under-appreciated (even by the authors of SICP!)
http://blog.languager.org/2013/08/applying-si-on-sicp.htmlNot sure what you mean: Scheme does not have intentional syntax for function application.Neither does Haskell.Both have a reified (or first-classed) function for function-application. Scheme pronounces it 'apply'. Haskell pronounces it '$'This is close but not quite the same as an explicit application syntax:Close because if we havefoo x = 2*x
we can write
Prelude> foo $ (2+5)
14
or
Prelude> foo (2+5)
14Not quite the same because the definition of foo cannot be 'explicitized' to
foo$x = 2*x
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beginners