Since the "removal" of curried function, I am looking for some elegant ways to work with partial functions (and reduce creation of closure and nested func for the developper).
And now I am asking myself if it's not better to align operator's types to the arrow style instead of using tuple argument style.
For example:
Why Int.multiplyWithOverflow's type is (Int, Int) -> (Int, overflow: Bool) instead of (Int -> Int) -> (Int, overflow: Bool)
When curried function will come back (if it come back, which is a personal hope) that will avoid many refactoring.
I think that, write this : let f:(Int, Int) throws -> Int = (+) seem a bit ugly for this purpose
let f:(Int -> Int) -> Int = (+) seem more suitable.
We could imagine that in the future the compile could automatically create a closure if the programmer define something like
let lmul: (Int) -> (Int) -> (Int) = (*)
and then, doing the habitual stuffs : let mulOfTwo = lmul(2)
Function currying wasn’t removed, just some of the confusing syntax for it. This works fine in the Xcode 8 beta:
infix operator <> {} // random operator that doesn’t do anything else
func <> <T, U, V> (op: (T, U) -> V, rhs: U) -> ((T) -> V) { return { op($0, rhs) } }
func <> <T, U, V> (lhs: T, op: (T, U) -> V) -> ((U) -> V) { return { op(lhs, $0) } }
let divby2 = (/) <> 2
print(divby2(10)) // prints "5"
let invert = 1.0 <> (/)
print(invert(10)) // prints "0.1"
More to the point, though, given this definition:
let foo: (Int) -> (Int) -> (Int)
Would the correct way to use `foo` with today’s syntax be "foo(Int) -> (Int, Int)”, "foo(Int) -> ((Int) -> Int)”, or "foo(Int, Int) -> Int”?
Seems like a lot of confusion and ambiguity for something that, at least as far as I can tell, doesn’t actually provide any functionality.
- Dave Sweeris
···
On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:07 PM, J. Charles N. MBIADA via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Hi Swift,
Since the "removal" of curried function, I am looking for some elegant ways to work with partial functions (and reduce creation of closure and nested func for the developper).
And now I am asking myself if it's not better to align operator's types to the arrow style instead of using tuple argument style.
For example:
Why Int.multiplyWithOverflow's type is (Int, Int) -> (Int, overflow: Bool) instead of (Int -> Int) -> (Int, overflow: Bool)
When curried function will come back (if it come back, which is a personal hope) that will avoid many refactoring.
I think that, write this : let f:(Int, Int) throws -> Int = (+) seem a bit ugly for this purpose
let f:(Int -> Int) -> Int = (+) seem more suitable.
We could imagine that in the future the compile could automatically create a closure if the programmer define something like
let lmul: (Int) -> (Int) -> (Int) = (*)
and then, doing the habitual stuffs : let mulOfTwo = lmul(2)
Since the "removal" of curried function, I am looking for some elegant ways to work with partial functions (and reduce creation of closure and nested func for the developper).
And now I am asking myself if it's not better to align operator's types to the arrow style instead of using tuple argument style.
For example:
Why Int.multiplyWithOverflow's type is (Int, Int) -> (Int, overflow: Bool) instead of (Int -> Int) -> (Int, overflow: Bool)
That looks wrong to me. That says that Int.multiplyWithOverflow is a function that takes another function (of type (Int) -> Int) and returns a tuple.
What you really want is a function that takes an Int and returns another function that takes an Int and returns the tuple i.e. its signature would look like this
(Int) -> ((Int) -> (Int, Bool))
If we assume -> is right associative we can simplify to
(Int) -> (Int) -> (Int, Bool)
which makes more sense but is less clear to most programmers than the current syntax.
···
On 15 Jun 2016, at 21:07, J. Charles N. MBIADA via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
When curried function will come back (if it come back, which is a personal hope) that will avoid many refactoring.
I think that, write this : let f:(Int, Int) throws -> Int = (+) seem a bit ugly for this purpose
let f:(Int -> Int) -> Int = (+) seem more suitable.
We could imagine that in the future the compile could automatically create a closure if the programmer define something like
let lmul: (Int) -> (Int) -> (Int) = (*)
and then, doing the habitual stuffs : let mulOfTwo = lmul(2)