Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!NewsWatcher!user
From: vanmeule@acm.org (Andre van Meulebrouck)
Subject: Re: curried vs. tupled
Message-ID: <vanmeule-1903950112560001@192.0.2.1>
Sender: vanmeule@netcom11.netcom.com
Organization: nil
References: <3jplaj$61k@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <hbaker-1103950901230001@192.0.2.1> <bakulD5BA30.8G6@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 08:12:56 GMT
Lines: 13
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:17119 comp.lang.scheme:12354

In article <bakulD5BA30.8G6@netcom.com>, bakul@netcom.com (Bakul Shah) wrote:

> 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?

I wouldn't care for that because you're being deprived of error trapping
when you have too few arguments because you goofed rather than intending
to curry!

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;  Andre van Meulebrouck  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;  e-mail:  vanmeule@acm.org     finger:  vanmeule@netcom.com  ;;
;;;;;  URL:  ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/va/vanmeule/home.html  ;;;;;
