j
k
j a
j l
...f x = x + x Is the "x" use to create a pattern in the definition and when f is called it's replaced by a value? Those equation-like definitions are syntactic sugar for lambda abstractions. f could as well be defined as f = \x -> x + x.
f x = x + x Is the "x" use to create a pattern in the definition and when f is called it's replaced by a value?
Those equation-like definitions are syntactic sugar for lambda abstractions. f could as well be defined as f = \x -> x + x.
Please elaborate
Back to the thread
Back to the list
