Hacker News Reader

> My answers are almost always less intented for the person who's post I'm responding to, but more for a general audience

Same. I don't expect you're going to admit your mistake, but I'm pointing it out because the general audience is the sort of audience who is prone to this mistake (which I only know because I myself have been corrected for making this mistake).

> As others have already posted the part about "currying isn't partial application", and I mainly wanted to add a (hopefully) understanable example.

And in doing so, you're making the same mistake as those other posters, by assuming skybrian doesn't know what currying and partial application are. You're not doing your audience any favors by painting skybrian's post as if he said something wrong.

> And I would say that taking the OP's post as if he doesn't exactly know, what currying means in comparison to partia application _is_ the more favourable interpretation of their post.

How so?

View on HN

#include <iostream> #include <functional> template <typename Ret, typename First, typename ...Rest> class Curry { std::function<Ret(First, Rest...)> fn; public: Curry(std::function<Ret(First, Rest...)> fn): fn(fn) {}; Curry<Ret, Rest...> operator()(First arg) { return Curry<Ret, Rest...>{[this, arg](Rest... args) { return this->fn(arg, args...); }}; } }; template <typename Ret, typename Arg> class Curry<Ret, Arg> { std::function<Ret(Arg)> fn; public: Curry(std::function<Ret(Arg)> fn): fn(fn) {}; Ret operator()(Arg arg) { return this->fn(arg); } }; int uncurried(int a, int b, int c) { return a + 2*b + 3*c; } int main() { auto curried = Curry<int, int, int, int>{uncurried}; std::cout << curried(1)(2)(3) << std::endl; }