Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, Bots, edit
57,719
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: − + Line 21:
Line 21: − +
→An Example of Why and How: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: For example → For example,, defintion → definition
Rather than giving multiply a tuple with two numbers, what if we only gave multiply one number. This function would then return another function, which took another number. This second function would then return the answer.
Rather than giving multiply a tuple with two numbers, what if we only gave multiply one number. This function would then return another function, which took another number. This second function would then return the answer.
For example if we were multiplying 3 and 2, multiply would take 3, return a new function called ''multiply 3'' which takes 2 as its argument and returns 6.
For example, if we were multiplying 3 and 2, multiply would take 3, return a new function called ''multiply 3'' which takes 2 as its argument and returns 6.
In Haskell syntax we would define this as
In Haskell syntax we would define this as
multiply x y = x * y
multiply x y = x * y
With this new defintion we can just set out function double to be multiply 2. In Haskell this is
With this new definition we can just set out function double to be multiply 2. In Haskell this is
double :: Integer -> Integer
double :: Integer -> Integer