Anonymous user
Talk:First-class functions: Difference between revisions
→just changed the Javascript example: new section
(→Ursala example has no compose function: Thanks.) |
(→just changed the Javascript example: new section) |
||
Line 87:
I've added some commentary on functional composition. The <code>+</code> operator used here is the idiomatic way of expressing composition, whereas the definition in [[Functional Composition#Ursala]] is written the way it is to comply with that task specification. The cube function is user-created and the cube root function is a library function, since this task specification says to use one of each. What's the problem? -- [[User:Sluggo|Sluggo]]
: ''"What's the problem?"'' ... My lack of knowledge of Ursala :-)<br>--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 01:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
== just changed the Javascript example ==
Hello, I changed the Javascript example (http://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=First-class_functions&diff=97198&oldid=97008 ) because I think the old one is totally bogus - no semicolons, no "function" keyword, local var "fn" unintentionally overrides the "fn" array; doesn't work anywhere I tried (Firefox and jsdb). Is this perhaps some dialect I don't know of?
| |||