[boost] Re: FC++: formal review

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-01 02:22:54

> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:53:23PM -0500, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> >    I do not understand need for separate notion of thunks. Why couldn't
we
> > just bind all function arguments using usual means?
>
> The "usual means" are either explicit currying or implicit currying.
> Given a 3-arg f:
>
>    f(x)        or   f(x,_,_)           // result is binary func
>
> just binds the first arg, and
>
>    f(x,y)      or   f(x,y,_)           // result is unary func
>
> just binds the first two, but clearly we can't say
>
>    f(x,y,z)                            // calls f
>
> to bind all three, as this is the syntax to call the function now.  As a
> result, the separate
>
>    thunk3(f,x,y,z)                     // result is nullary func
>
> is used when you want to bind all N arguments and get back a nullary
> functor (a thunk).

IMO there should not be separate notion of thunk. We need built-in currying
and external currying using bind facility. That's it.

Gennadiy.