Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Dec-2024 15:38:33 JST Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
   I'm triggered so hard right now because THAT'S NOT WHAT A LAMBDA ABSTRACTION IS :blobcat-angry-intensifies:
   • Embed this notice
     Yuchen Pei (quasi@peister.org)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Dec-2024 16:46:51 JST Yuchen Pei

     in reply to
     @taylan
     Why don't you think
     fn (i) => i * i
     is a lambda?
   • Embed this notice
     Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Dec-2024 17:49:44 JST Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)

     in reply to

     • Yuchen Pei
     @quasi Copy pasting my pedantic response that I've written elsewhere:
     
     AKSHUALLY...
     
     Using "lambdas" as a noun like this is wrong to begin with. Lambda is merely the operator, whose evaluation yields a "lambda abstraction." In Scheme, we would call that a closure, but closures *are* lambda abstractions (implemented as procedures in Scheme). By definition, they capture the variables present in their lexical environment. That's an essential feature of the lambda calculus.
     Yuchen Pei likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Yuchen Pei (quasi@peister.org)'s status on Wednesday, 25-Dec-2024 18:05:39 JST Yuchen Pei

     in reply to
     @taylan
     I see what you mean. Yes what they call lambdas here are actually combinators