[chuck-users] wishlist for the new year

[mike clemow]

oops, the definition should have been this:

fun fun int bing(int b)
{
   fun int funk(int i) { return b+i; }
   return funk;
}

mike

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 1:59 PM, mike clemow <michaelclemow at gmail.com>wrote:

> Kas,
>
> 1 => foo;
>
> this is sane, but this isn't:
>
> 1 => foo => bar;
>
> foo(1) is the same as 1 => foo
>
> foo => bar is the same as bar(foo)
>
> however, I was suggesting that I could assign the object/function foo to
> reference bar this way:
>
> foo @=> bar;
>
> which means this:
>
> 1 => bar;
>
> would now return 3 because bar is now a reference to the same function foo
> is a reference to.
>
> see what I mean?
>
>
>
> additionally, given
>
> fun fun int bing(int b)
> {
>    fun void funk(int i) { return b+i; }
>    return funk;
> }
>
> this:
>
> <<< 4 => bing(5) >>>;
>
> should print "9" in my weird world.  I'm not sure that this actually is
> going to work this way, i'm just suggesting that we could get a lot of
> interesting things if functions were objects.  I might be lynched for saying
> this, but JavaScript works this way.  It's a lot easier with a dynamically
> typed language in which variables are always just references to other things
> (like they are in Chuck with objects, but not with primitives).
>
> I don't think we're going to get away with this without adding some sort of
> keyword to Chuck.  "function" is already taken as a keyword, according to
> the documentation, even though nothing using it has been implemented as far
> as I know.  Perhaps we can add a function type that extends object.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> 2010/1/6 Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com>
>
>> Mike;
>>
>>
>> What about this:
>>>
>>>
>> Well;
>>
>> fun int foo( int arg)
>>   {
>>   return 3;
>>   }
>>
>> fun void bar( int arg)
>>   {
>>   <<<"boring">>>;
>>   }
>>
>> //overload
>> fun void bar ( fun arg)
>>   {
>>   <<<"fun">>>;
>>   }
>>
>> 1 => foo => bar;
>>
>> Would that print "fun" or "boring"? That last line is a case where we
>> refer to the function without parentheses yet still expect it to be called
>> and to return under current syntax.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Kas.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> chuck-users mailing list
>> chuck-users at lists.cs.princeton.edu
>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://michaelclemow.com
> http://semiotech.org
>
>


-- 
http://michaelclemow.com
http://semiotech.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20100110/3eab2319/attachment.html>