Re: [boost] painless currying

Subject: Re: [boost] painless currying
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-25 12:20:53

On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 02:15:03 PM Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed Aug 24 2011, "Peter Dimov" <pdimov-AT-pdimov.com> wrote:
> > Dave Abrahams wrote:
> >> I suppose the symmetrical non-lazy version looks like:
> >>   f(x) => doesn't call f
> >>   f(x)(y) => doesn't call f
> >>   f(x)(y)(z) => doesn't call f
> >>   f(x)(y)(z)() => calls f
> > 
> > This allows you to express bind( f, x, y, z ), which was impossible
> > before, but you've now lost the capability to express bind( f, x, y,
> > _1 ), which was.
> > 
> > bind( f, _1, y, z ), which is often needed in practice, is possible
> > under neither, which makes me view this whole exercise as somewhat
> > academic.
> 
> Yes, it has always been my view that bind was unambiguously better for
> non-lazy languages, and at least more flexible even for lazy ones.

I start to think likewise. After all, most alternative solutions looked a lot 
like bind or at least would lead to something like bind.