3 ms·
I don't think I've seen it argued before that (f x) is a more obvious form than f(x). Usually the argument for (f x) is premised on a lisp-based idea of homoico
by stormbrew 14y ago
I don't think I've seen it argued before that (f x) is a more obvious form than f(x). Usually the argument for (f x) is premised on a lisp-based idea of homoiconicity (code/data parity).
The reason f(x) seems more obvious in meaning, to me at least, is that f is a thing and (x) is a message or application I'm giving it.
- pash 14y agoThe traditional syntax really falls down when your functions are curried and you want to do partial application. In that context, as in Haskell, the f x_1 ... x_n syntax is as natural as it gets.