Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta
Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!trane.uninett.no!nac.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!ub4b!idefix.CS.kuleuven.ac.be!reks.uia.ac.be!news
From: vaughan@maze.ruca.ua.ac.be (David Vaughan)
Subject: Curry
Message-ID: <1994Sep25.121732.5463@reks.uia.ac.be>
Sender: news@reks.uia.ac.be (USENET News System)
Organization: U.I.A.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 12:17:32 GMT
Lines: 39




Lee McGraw (mcgraw@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
>
>       Multiply : (# a, b : @integer;
>                     enter (a, b)
>                     exit a * b
>                   #)
>        m : ^Multiply;  { m is a reference to multiply objects }
>
>        &Multiply[] -> m[];  { m contains a multiply object }
>        (2, 3) -> m -> putInt   { cause the multiply ACTION of m to occur }
>                                { and the i/o action of putInt to be called }
>

Someone else (sorry, I forget who) suggested a <- syntax, eg.
          putInt <- m <- (2, 3)

Many functional languages enjoy the clarity of the   operator (that was a
space character) and would like to write:
          putInt  (m  (2, 3))

or, if currying is allowed,
          putInt (m 2 3)


(a) Would this be too outlandish a syntactic style for an imperative language?
(b) Syntax aside, have the BETA authors considered currying, or at least
    something which might be used in this sort of way:

          (&Multiply[] 2) -> double[];

    Does this concept have any meaning in the context of BETA?  How would you
    describe the derivation of double's type from that of a Multiply object?


David