In other words, is there a good reason why this shouldn\'t compile? def f(xs: List[Int]) = xs.foldLeft(0) _// OK
Suppose I\'m writing a GUI class Kitteh (val age: Int) { require (age < 5) def saveMeow(file: File) = { /* implementation */ }
See this example: def hello(a:String, b:String) = println(a + \":\" + b) val m1 = hello(\"aaa\", _ ) m1(\"bbb\")
In Scala one can write (curried?) functions like this def curriedFunc(arg1: Int) (arg2: String) = { ... }
I currently 开发者_如何学JAVAhave a partial-application function which looks like this: Function.prototype.curry = function()
I have twice recently refactored code in order to change the order of parameters because there was too much code where hacks like flip or \\x -> foo bar x 42 were happening.
When I write something like map (1+) list in Haskell, what is the internal representation of (1+)? Since it is a partial application of (+), the argument 开发者_运维技巧1 has to be saved somewhere, bu
Suppose I have defined a function: def hello(name:String, words:String) = println(\"Hello!\" + name + words)
Is there a way in scala to get the arguments back from a already partially applied function? Does this even make sense, should be done, or fits into any use case?
In Python, is it considered better style to: explicitly d开发者_开发知识库efine useful functions in terms of more general, possibly internal use, functions; or,
加载中,请稍侯......