Add implicit partially applied operator function syntax
See original GitHub issue(< 5) => (lambda x: x < 5)
(5 +) => (lambda x: 5 + x)
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 8 years ago
- Reactions:2
- Comments:26 (16 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
2.3.5. Partial Application · Functional Programming in OCaml
Partial application. We could define an addition function as follows: let add x y = x + y. Here's a rather similar function:...
Read more >OCaml for the Skeptical: Defining and Applying Functions
This is why OCaml only needs functions of one argument. OCaml doesn't work this way just to be perverse; it does it because...
Read more >Partial function application - Rosetta Code
Partial function application is the ability to take a function of many parameters and apply arguments to some of the parameters to create...
Read more >How to create and use partial functions in Scala
A partial function is a function that does not provide an answer for every possible input value it can be given. It provides...
Read more >Functions - F# | Microsoft Learn
In this article. Syntax; Remarks; Scope; Function Bodies; Return Values; Calling a Function; Partial Application of Arguments; Recursive ...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
I like very much the
(-> ? + 2)
suggestion 😃 (more consistent than$
imo)But why is
( < 2)
, your first suggestion, eliminated ? That’s very elegant, the shortest (and what I’m used to with livescript’s functional library). Chaining transformations like that is a joy, there’s nothing redundant, what’s in there matters:instead of
which is pretty good also 😃
@vindarel Thanks for the input! I think I’m currently leaning towards 1, and that will probably be what gets implemented in the next release.