Timeline for I don't like curry
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
40 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2021 at 11:48 | answer | added | MarcMush | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 26, 2021 at 10:38 | history | edited | Wheat Wizard♦ | edited tags | |
| Feb 2, 2021 at 8:27 | answer | added | Adám | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 16:59 | comment | added | user | @Adám Sure, it's pretty much the same as having a function pointer. | |
| Feb 1, 2021 at 15:48 | comment | added | Adám | Can we take the name of a function? | |
| Jan 2, 2021 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCodeGolf/status/1345429659958325252 | ||
| Dec 30, 2020 at 18:58 | answer | added | Giuseppe | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 30, 2020 at 15:44 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 4.0 | Allowed constraining return type |
| Dec 30, 2020 at 6:05 | answer | added | Conor O'Brien | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 30, 2020 at 2:29 | answer | added | Daniel Schepler | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 30, 2020 at 0:05 | answer | added | Ivan G. | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 17:03 | answer | added | Daniel Wagner | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 16:35 | comment | added | user | @DanielWagner Ah, I see your point now. I suppose you'll have to accept the number of arguments. | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 16:33 | comment | added | Daniel Wagner | @user Would it? Or would it be the unchanged a -> a? Or would it be ((a -> b -> c), a, b) -> c? Or ((a -> b -> c -> d), a, b, c) -> d, or...? But okay, if I can expect the caller to specify the number of arguments, then the goal is more clear. | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 15:55 | comment | added | user | @DanielWagner What Wheat Wizard said is right, you can take the number of arguments to curry, or you can curry all of them. In this case, though, I don't see much of a problem, your resulting function would look something like ((a -> b), a) -> b, right? | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 15:21 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 63 characters in body |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 14:58 | comment | added | ASCII-only | @user That (5th point) says in languages where functions are curried (by default) imo | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 14:52 | comment | added | user | @ASCII-only I thought the 5th bullet point made it clear that was allowed, but I will try to make it more explicit | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 14:41 | comment | added | ASCII-only | @user are we allowed to take in a single list as argument, rather than multiple arguments? in that case, could you make it clearer in the question? | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 13:04 | answer | added | Donat | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 12:01 | answer | added | ais523 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 12:01 | comment | added | Wheat Wizard♦ | @DanielWagner I'm not the OP but presumably the choice there is to take the number of arguments as an input (at type level) and use that. | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 11:44 | answer | added | ASCII-only | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 11:13 | answer | added | ASCII-only | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 11:03 | answer | added | ASCII-only | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 10:49 | comment | added | ASCII-only | @vrintle that's not a curried proc... this is... (what i mean is, the builtin .curry is not what the question means by a curried proc.) | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 10:24 | comment | added | vrintle | Is this ruby code is a valid solution for this challenge? Actually in ruby, curried proc supports both syntax: f[1][2][3] and f[1,2,3], and so this works ;-) | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 9:15 | answer | added | ASCII-only | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 4:56 | comment | added | Daniel Wagner | What should happen in languages that allow polymorphic returns where the polymorphism may cover function types? For example, in Haskell, id :: a -> a can be also be called at the type id :: (a -> b) -> a -> b. Does id have one argument or two (or three or four or...)? | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 3:38 | answer | added | tsh | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 3:36 | comment | added | user | @tsh Er, ignore that. It’s not completely curried, anyway | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 3:35 | comment | added | user | @WheatWizard I’d rather not place an arbitrary limit, so no. You don’t need a flat tuple, though, (a, (b, (c, ()))) is fine | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 3:06 | comment | added | tsh | By "Given a blackbox curried function, output its uncurried equivalent": The uncurry function receives two arguments, a function and its arguments, currying. | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 2:32 | comment | added | Wheat Wizard♦ | Is there a limit to the number of arguments we must support? Haskell has a hard limit on tuple size (23 I think?). | |
| Dec 28, 2020 at 2:24 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Dec 28, 2020 at 0:23 | answer | added | Dominic van Essen | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 27, 2020 at 22:11 | answer | added | att | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 27, 2020 at 20:30 | answer | added | Danis | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 27, 2020 at 19:16 | answer | added | Neil | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 27, 2020 at 18:23 | history | asked | user | CC BY-SA 4.0 |