Re: Functional programming in Python

Pertti Kellomäki wrote,

...

From: Ketil Malde "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" writes:

...

You want to be able to write

...

f 1 2 + g 3 4

...

instead of

...

(f 1 2) + (g 3 4)

I do? Personally, I find it a bit confusing, and I still often get it wrong on the first attempt.

Same here. A while back someone said something along the lines that people come to Haskell because of the syntax. For me it is the other way around. My background is in Scheme/Lisp, and I still find it irritating that I cannot just say indent-sexp and the like in Emacs. It is the other properties of the language that keep me using it. I also get irritated when I get precedence wrong, so in fact I tend to write (f 1 2) + (g 2 3), which to my eye conveys the intended structure much better and compiles at first try.

In languages that don't use curring, you would write f (1, 2) + g (2, 3) which also gives application precedence over infix operators. So, I think, we can safely say that application being stronger than infix operators is the standard situation. Nevertheless, the currying notation is a matter of habit. It took me a while to get used to it, too (as did layout). But now, I wouldn't want to miss them anymore. And as far as layout is concerned, I think, the Python people have made the same experience. For humans, it is quite natural to use visual cues (like layout) to indicate semantics. Cheers, Manuel