>  On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:53:23PM -0500, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>  >    I do not understand need for separate notion of thunks. Why couldn't
we
>  > just bind all function arguments using usual means?
> 
>  The "usual means" are either explicit currying or implicit currying.
>  Given a 3-arg f:
> 
>     f(x)        or   f(x,_,_)           // result is binary func
> 
>  just binds the first arg, and
> 
>     f(x,y)      or   f(x,y,_)           // result is unary func
> 
>  just binds the first two, but clearly we can't say
> 
>     f(x,y,z)                            // calls f
> 
>  to bind all three, as this is the syntax to call the function now.  As a
>  result, the separate
> 
>     thunk3(f,x,y,z)                     // result is nullary func
> 
>  is used when you want to bind all N arguments and get back a nullary
>  functor (a thunk).

IMO there should not be separate notion of thunk. We need built-in currying
and external currying using bind facility. That's it.

Gennadiy.



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost