From: zuzu Date: 2004-07-14T10:48:41+09:00 Subject: Re: Functional Ruby (Re: Why I don't use Ruby.) On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:29:53 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote: > On Tuesday 13 July 2004 16:12, Florian Gross wrote: > > Sean O'Dell wrote: > > > > > > I just found a great primer on FP, and I think I have either forgotten a > > > lot of it from my LISP days, or LISP never had these FP features I'm > > > reading about. This is really a very authoritative, clear and concise > > > explanation: > > > > > > http://www.cs.nyu.edu/goldberg/pubs/gold96.pdf > > > > Heh, I actually meant to say what's written there on the first page with > > all that "variables are just aliases" speech. > > > > If you intended to say this, too, then we're already agreeing here. :) > > Well, I was talking about variables, but I realized after looking at that > primer that I think most people were talking about "macros" or, at least, > that's what I remember calling them. It's been a long time, and LISP was my > only exposure to FP, really. I think I was mis-understanding some of the > terms people were using. waaaaaay back in the thread, i said: also, assignment in ruby is much improved over von neumann C-style assignment. in ruby assignment is merely the naming of objects for convenient reference (like pointers). see "Assignment" @ http://www.rubycentral.com/book/tut_expressions.html correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this essentially what functional programming languages call "macros"? i suppose this has been clarified? > > (Which means that this special aliasing assignment can be done via an > > operator-style syntax or a function-call-style syntax. This also means > > that operators and functions are actually the same things with different > > syntaxes. :)) > > > > Oh, and I think that let x = y is actually an operator-style syntax. > > It sure is; I think I just got a really skewed version of FP in my head. > > Sean O'Dell > >