3 ms·

You'd use an underscore to form a partially applied function: foo.Sort(x.compare _) And Scala's getters and setters are essentially equivalent to C#'s pro

You'd use an underscore to form a partially applied function: foo.Sort(x.compare _) And Scala's getters and setters are essentially equivalent to C#'s properties: class A { private var _x = 0 def x = _x def x_=(value: Int) { _x = value } } val a = new A a.x = 5 println(a.x)

nknight 15y ago
So instead of a simple, uniform rule that () invokes a function, and no-() references the function, you add yet a third syntax? This is not an improvement, it is an unnecessary complication.
- skaalf 15y ago
  That's not the same thing. You obviously use partial application only if the function takes params. And I just can't see why you'd like to pass a reference on a parameter-less function.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Closures don't need to take parameters to be useful, but you're missing the point. There is a simple, unambiguous rule -- () calls, no-() references. In order to... what? save two keystrokes? -- you have added a strange corner case, and then tacked on a new bit of punctuation for partial application. Though now it seems you're adding the rule that functions without parameters can't be referenced. This takes a simple yes-or-no rule and adds edge cases for no reason. Two keystrokes on the occasional parameterless function call is not a real savings, and you've just made it harder for someone reading the code to spot all the function calls. This fundamentally makes no sense. Why would this be a good idea?
    - skaalf 15y ago
      There's no ambiguity when you're using closures. Concerning partial function application, you need a special syntax anyway (unless you consider all functions to be curried by default). You don't do that to save keystrokes, you omit parenthesis because "All services offered by a module should be available through a uniform notation, which does not betray whether they are implemented through storage or through computation." I used scala for a while, I admit there's a whole bunch of features that can get you confused. This takes 30s to spot.

nknight 15y ago

So instead of a simple, uniform rule that () invokes a function, and no-() references the function, you add yet a third syntax? This is not an improvement, it is an unnecessary complication.

skaalf 15y ago
That's not the same thing. You obviously use partial application only if the function takes params. And I just can't see why you'd like to pass a reference on a parameter-less function.
- nknight 15y ago
  Closures don't need to take parameters to be useful, but you're missing the point. There is a simple, unambiguous rule -- () calls, no-() references. In order to... what? save two keystrokes? -- you have added a strange corner case, and then tacked on a new bit of punctuation for partial application. Though now it seems you're adding the rule that functions without parameters can't be referenced. This takes a simple yes-or-no rule and adds edge cases for no reason. Two keystrokes on the occasional parameterless function call is not a real savings, and you've just made it harder for someone reading the code to spot all the function calls. This fundamentally makes no sense. Why would this be a good idea?
  - skaalf 15y ago
    There's no ambiguity when you're using closures. Concerning partial function application, you need a special syntax anyway (unless you consider all functions to be curried by default). You don't do that to save keystrokes, you omit parenthesis because "All services offered by a module should be available through a uniform notation, which does not betray whether they are implemented through storage or through computation." I used scala for a while, I admit there's a whole bunch of features that can get you confused. This takes 30s to spot.