[nem-en] out / ref

[d]

On Sep 27, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Michal Moskal wrote:

> You're completely right. The problem is that we already have foo (3,
> _). And I'm not quite sure we want to change it. Maybe we should,

  IMO ? Definitely not.

> however partial application seems to be much more frequent than out _

  Definitely yes. Especially if you want to maintain Nemerle's  
functional friendliness.

> OTOH now, when we have that "x => f (3, x)" notation it might not be
> that useful.

  Nope, it's still great.

> Any suggestions what to use instead of _ in for partial application?

  A lot of code uses this syntax already and besides - it would cause  
a lot of confusion and misuse (all the more since this syntax exists  
only in Nemerle AFAIK, so there's really no other place to look to).  
IMO it's just too late to make such changes. It's now a different  
responsibility, than in the times of, say 0.3, where syntax  
experiments where an obvious must.
  I didn't really follow this discussion very carefully, but if Foo  
(ref/out _) were to mean x => Foo (ref/out x); than that's fine by  
me, but changing the syntax for partial application altogether - bad  
idea IMO.

cheers,
d

--
https://hell.art.pl == terror.org.pl == terror.icm.edu.pl/~d/gpg



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /mailman/pipermail/devel-en/attachments/20060928/0c91dc87/PGP.bin