Alexandria is a collection of portable public domain utilities in the programming language Common Lisp. This is its development mailinglist.

Nikodemus Siivola | 6 Aug 2009 10:00

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

2009/8/6 Leslie P. Polzer <sky <at> viridian-project.de>:
>
> Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
>
>> I'm slowly coming to think that calling them CURRY and RCURRY is
>> indeed a mistake we should stop propagating.
>
> Alright, but don't you agree that partial-apply and esp.
> reverse-partial-apply are names that are too long for such
> a basic function?

No. Clarity is far more important than being terse: they are no slower
to read, and meaning is that much more immediately obvious. Note
though that I'm not convinced either is a real win over

 (lambda (b) (foo a b))

and

 (lambda (a) (foo a b))

in any way. Using PARTIAL-APPLY above would be sophistry and
obfuscation. They become nice only when the number of arguments is
increases:

 (partial-apply #'foo a b c)

rather than

  (lambda (d e f) (foo a b c d e f))

(Continue reading)

headers

Attila Lendvai | 6 Aug 2009 14:31

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

>> Alright, but don't you agree that partial-apply and esp.
>> reverse-partial-apply are names that are too long for such
>> a basic function?
>
> No. Clarity is far more important than being terse: they are no slower
> to read, and meaning is that much more immediately obvious. Note

if people second the other opinion, then i feel that i must speak up
on behalf of the non-abbreviation group.

the need for abbreviation (if any) should be satisfied by a tool (the
editor), not a library.

--

-- 
 attila

headers

Leslie P. Polzer | 7 Aug 2009 12:08

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?

Attila Lendvai wrote:

> if people second the other opinion, then i feel that i must speak up
> on behalf of the non-abbreviation group.
>
> the need for abbreviation (if any) should be satisfied by a tool (the
> editor), not a library.

Indeed, but it's also a matter of screen estate. Composition of
three functions partially applied in reverse order might be a one-liner
using RCURRY but a whopping three lines using REVERSE-PARTIAL-APPLY.

Anyway I feel this discussion is largely based on fancy.
How about offering both interfaces?

  Leslie

--

-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/polzer

headers

Ryan Davis | 6 Aug 2009 15:11

Re: curry and rcurry -> papply and rpapply?


Attila Lendvai wrote:
> if people second the other opinion, then i feel that i must speak up
> on behalf of the non-abbreviation group.
>
> the need for abbreviation (if any) should be satisfied by a tool (the
> editor), not a library.
>
>   
I also vote for the longer, more descriptive name.  Auto-complete is my
friend.

Thanks,

Ryan Davis
Acceleration.net
Director of Programming Services
2831 NW 41st street, suite B
Gainesville, FL 32606

Office: 352-335-6500 x 124
Fax: 352-335-6506