From: Evan Phoenix <evan@...>
Date: 2008-05-12T10:17:56+09:00
Subject: Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on


On May 11, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on"
>    on Mon, 12 May 2008 09:10:16 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@rubypal.com 
> > writes:
>
> |Hmmm... how about "define a function [and bind it, optionally, to a
> |name, which makes it a method] which takes parameter x, etc....".
>
> In my mental model, define means binding a name to something.
>
> |If def[ine] always meant a method, then wouldn't define_method just  
> be
> |define? :-)
>
> I don't think def (or define) always mean a method.  We define (give a
> name) to methods, classes, modules etc.  The reason we use def for
> methods is the spirit of Huffman encoding.

In the spirit of that, how about 'lam() { }' to create a lambda? :)

>
>
> 							matz.
>