X-Received: by 10.224.96.136 with SMTP id h8mr1055496qan.8.1380035275577; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.44.163 with SMTP id f3mr36894obm.34.1380035275537; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!d5no1673448qap.0!news-out.google.com!9ni101qaf.0!nntp.google.com!d5no1751218qap.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qotr4cenuhk.fsf@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=59.95.1.129; posting-account=mBpa7woAAAAGLEWUUKpmbxm-Quu5D8ui
NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.95.1.129
References: <b1a0acc2-b6e6-41c2-941c-9e9ccde1abb1@googlegroups.com> <CAPM-O+w=wGf2ZxezQj5Mccrx_mDsgtxxKNtmL4GhDn_x3ty2Rw@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.170.1375562619.1251.python-list@python.org> <c45c6fe3-b79c-4d14-9c89-b462808d7e32@googlegroups.com> <ba94102b-18b6-4850-ac85-032b0fe2fa75@googlegroups.com> <mailman.277.1379960704.18130.python-list@python.org> <840ba5b2-761b-4f89-990b-75218e3cd7fb@googlegroups.com> <qot38ouk6mc.fsf@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi> <9b9126bc-875a-4045-9613-d2d81b30cf1c@googlegroups.com> <qotr4cenuhk.fsf@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <32dd86b4-e99d-485b-a2b3-bc173f67289d@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Functional Programming and python
From: rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:07:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:54705

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:21:19 PM UTC+5:30, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
> Would the type system get in the way of providing some analogous
> function in Haskell? I don't know.

Yes.
The haskell curry
curry f x y = f (x,y)
is really only curry2
curry3 would be
curry3 f x y z = f (x,y,z)
and so on upwards

Vanilla Haskell makes it real hard to put all these under one type umbrella

By comparison python's partial is quite effortless.

And this is an old conundrum in programming language design:

In C printf is easy to write and NOT put into the language but into external libraries
In Pascal, writeln cannot be outside the language because as a user defined function, its type would not fit the type system.

And so printf can be made to crash quite easily; not so writeln!