Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!kamin From: kamin@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: jnw's question about omitting the 'b Message-ID: <26400019@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Dec-84 11:15:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.26400019 Posted: Fri Dec 14 11:15:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 04:54:50 EST References: <3748@ucbvax.UUCP> Lines: 25 Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax:-374800:uiucdcs:26400019:000:1343 Nf-From: uiucdcs!kamin Dec 14 10:15:00 1984 I am also curious about the omission of "bu", and (forgive me) couldn't understand Baden's "response." It does not appear that "bu" was omitted in favor of a more general currying function - at least I can't find any in the manual. (And obviously such a function can't be user-defined, since it is a functional.) I'd just like to re-submit this question. By the way, I would like some clarification on the comment made by jnw, and endorsed by Baden, on a "more general" currying function. The idea is that a function f may have a pair of arguments , and you want to obtain, for fixed x0, a function F such that F:y = f:. This might be generalized to f having more than two arguments, but this is quite a different thing: for fixed x1,...,xn, find F such that F: = f:. This is not a "generalization" of bu in the sense that bu is a special case, because in the two argument case, we would have F: = f:, and is not the same as y. A further generalization is to allow some subset of the arguments to be fixed, but this would be a notational nightmare (this kind of thing can be done nicely only by allowing user-defined functionals). So I would like to know what Wilson and Baden have in mind. Sam Kamin (uiucdcs!kamin) C.S. Dept. U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign