Why not just talk about functions like &curry as closures?
For language-independance. Closures might be the way curring is implemented in Perl, but that doesn't mean it's always implemented that way.
For instance, OcaML technically only supports one argument per function. However, the language cheats by recursively passing on the next argument in a multi-arg list and curring all previous arguments. This process is transparent to the programmer (though there are some tricks you can do involving this technique).
"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.
In reply to Re: Closures versus Currying
by hardburn
in thread Closures versus Currying
by pernod
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |