Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!bakul
From: bakul@netcom.com (Bakul Shah)
Subject: Re: curried vs. tupled
Message-ID: <bakulD5BA30.8G6@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3jplaj$61k@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <hbaker-1103950901230001@192.0.2.1>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 05:04:11 GMT
Lines: 10
Sender: bakul@netcom4.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:17038 comp.lang.scheme:12292

hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) writes:

>I can't comment on ml, but there are times when I wish certain functions
>in Lisp were curried rather than tupled.  The reason is that I would like
>the functions to be partially applied, and that the compiler would take
>advantage of constant propagation for the partially applied arguments.

Would it be a valid extension for a Scheme system to treat a
procedure called with `insufficient' number of arguments as an
indication to return a curried procedure?
