Timeline for Is there a name for #1@#2&?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 19, 2013 at 8:16 | comment | added | Kuba | @bobknight You have convinced me that it is possible to interprete my question this way. However, as Leonid Shifrin has said, it was about very particular construction, that's why I haven't precised it better. Maybe I should edit the title to: "Is there a built-in function identical to pure #@#2&?" ? | |
| Jul 19, 2013 at 6:45 | comment | added | bobknight | Leonid thanks for your comment. I'm new on SE and I'm learning how it works. I thought your answer, while correct, was not fully centered on the question. Indeed, the question I tried to answer is "Why there is no name for #1@#2&". The use of Compose/Composition is something about a possible alternative to use the pure function, not explaining why pure functions don't use variable's name. At least, this is my interpretation of the question. If I misinterpreted the question and you think my answer is not relevant for the whole thread, I can remove my answer. | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 18:17 | comment | added | Leonid Shifrin | This is correct, but does not seem very relevant to the question being discussed. The question seems to be about a very particular construction, and my digression into some particular aspects of pure functions in my answer was motivated by the comments rather than the original question itself. If your answer is a kind of a reply to that part of my answer, then I hasten to comment that I did not intend to describe pure functions in any extensive manner there, but only considered one particular aspect of them, relevant to the original question and answering the questions raised in comments. | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 18:07 | history | answered | bobknight | CC BY-SA 3.0 |