Search Results

Search found 218 results on 9 pages for 'closures'.

Page 1/9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >

• Are closures with side-effects considered "functional style"?

  - by Giorgio

  Many modern programming languages support some concept of closure, i.e. of a piece of code (a block or a function) that Can be treated as a value, and therefore stored in a variable, passed around to different parts of the code, be defined in one part of a program and invoked in a totally different part of the same program. Can capture variables from the context in which it is defined, and access them when it is later invoked (possibly in a totally different context). Here is an example of a closure written in Scala: def filterList(xs: List[Int], lowerBound: Int): List[Int] = xs.filter(x => x >= lowerBound) The function literal x => x >= lowerBound contains the free variable lowerBound, which is closed (bound) by the argument of the function filterList that has the same name. The closure is passed to the library method filter, which can invoke it repeatedly as a normal function. I have been reading a lot of questions and answers on this site and, as far as I understand, the term closure is often automatically associated with functional programming and functional programming style. The definition of function programming on wikipedia reads: In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data. It emphasizes the application of functions, in contrast to the imperative programming style, which emphasizes changes in state. and further on [...] in functional code, the output value of a function depends only on the arguments that are input to the function [...]. Eliminating side effects can make it much easier to understand and predict the behavior of a program, which is one of the key motivations for the development of functional programming. On the other hand, many closure constructs provided by programming languages allow a closure to capture non-local variables and change them when the closure is invoked, thus producing a side effect on the environment in which they were defined. In this case, closures implement the first idea of functional programming (functions are first-class entities that can be moved around like other values) but neglect the second idea (avoiding side-effects). Is this use of closures with side effects considered functional style or are closures considered a more general construct that can be used both for a functional and a non-functional programming style? Is there any literature on this topic? IMPORTANT NOTE I am not questioning the usefulness of side-effects or of having closures with side effects. Also, I am not interested in a discussion about the advantages / disadvantages of closures with or without side effects. I am only interested to know if using such closures is still considered functional style by the proponent of functional programming or if, on the contrary, their use is discouraged when using a functional style.

  Read the article

• What's so useful about closures (in JS)?

  - by Mark Bubel

  In my quest to understand closures in the context of JS, I find myself asking why do you even need to use closures? What's so great about having an inner function be able to access the parent function's variables even after the parent function returns? I'm not even sure I asked that question correctly because I don't understand how to use them. Can someone give a real world example in JS where a closure is more beneficial vs. the alternative, whatever that may be?

  Read the article

• JS closures - Passing a function to a child, how should the shared object be accessed

  - by slicedtoad

  I have a design and am wondering what the appropriate way to access variables is. I'll demonstrate with this example since I can't seem to describe it better than the title. Term is an object representing a bunch of time data (a repeating duration of time defined by a bunch of attributes) Term has some print functionality but does not implement the print functions itself, rather they are passed in as anonymous functions by the parent. This would be similar to how shaders can be passed to a renderer rather than defined by the renderer. A container (let's call it Box) has a Schedule object that can understand and use Term objects. Box creates Term objects and passes them to Schedule as required. Box also defines the print functions stored in Term. A print function usually takes an argument and uses it to return a string based on that argument and Term's internal data. Sometime the print function could also use data stored in Schedule, though. I'm calling this data shared. So, the question is, what is the best way to access this shared data. I have a lot of options since JS has closures and I'm not familiar enough to know if I should be using them or avoiding them in this case. Options: Create a local "reference" (term used lightly) to the shared data (data is not a primitive) when defining the print function by accessing the shared data through Schedule from Box. Example: var schedule = function(){ var sched = Schedule(); var t1 = Term( function(x){ // Term.print() return (x + sched.data).format(); }); }; Bind it to Term explicitly. (Pass it in Term's constructor or something). Or bind it in Sched after Box passes it. And then access it as an attribute of Term. Pass it in at the same time x is passed to the print function, (from sched). This is the most familiar way for my but it doesn't feel right given JS's closure ability. Do something weird like bind some context and arguments to print. I'm hoping the correct answer isn't purely subjective. If it is, then I guess the answer is just "do whatever works". But I feel like there are some significant differences between the approaches that could have a large impact when stretched beyond my small example.

  Read the article

• Closures in Java 7

  - by Schildmeijer

  I have heard that closures could be introduced in the next Java standard that is scheduled to be released somewhere around next summer. What would this syntax look like? I read somewhere that introducing closures in java is a bigger change than generic was in java 5. Is this true? pros and cons? (By now we definitely know that closures not will be included in the next Java release) OR edit: http://puredanger.com/tech/2009/11/18/closures-after-all/ :D

  Read the article

• How will closures in Java impact the Java Community?

  - by Ryan Delucchi

  It is one of the most talked about features planned for Java: Closures. Many of us have been longing for them. Some of us (including I) have grown a bit impatient and have turned to scripting languages to fill the void. But, once closures have finally arrived to Java: how will they effect the Java Community? Will the advancement of VM-targetted scripting languages slow to a crawl, stay the same, or acclerate? Will people flock to the new closure syntax, thus turning Java code-bases all-around into more functionally structured implementations? Will we only see closures sprinkled in Java throughout? What will be the effect on tool/IDE support? How about performance? And finally, what will it mean for Java's continued adoption, as a language, compared with other languages that are rising in popularity? To provide an example of one of the latest proposed Java Closure syntax specs: public interface StringOperation { String invoke(String s); } // ... (new StringOperation() { public invoke(String s) { new StringBuilder(s).reverse().toString(); } }).invoke("abcd"); would become ... String reversed = { String s => new StringBuilder(s).reverse().toString() }.invoke("abcd"); [source: http://tronicek.blogspot.com/2007/12/closures-closure-is-form-of-anonymous_28.html]

  Read the article

• Natural problems to solve using closures

  - by m.u.sheikh

  I have read quite a few articles on closures, and, embarassingly enough, I still don't understand this concept! Articles explain how to create a closure with a few examples, but I don't see any point in paying much attention to them, as they largely look contrived examples. I am not saying all of them are contrived, just that the ones I found looked contrived, and I dint see how even after understanding them, I will be able to use them. So in order to understand closures, I am looking at a few real problems, that can be solved very naturally using closures. For instance, a natural way to explain recursion to a person could be to explain the computation of n!. It is very natural to understand a problem like computing the factorial of a number using recursion. Similarly, it is almost a no-brainer to find an element in an unsorted array by reading each element, and comparing with the number in question. Also, at a different level, doing Object-oriented programming also makes sense. So I am trying to find a number of problems that could be solved with or without closures, but using closures makes thinking about them and solving them easier. Also, there are two types to closures, where each call to a closure can create a copy of the environment variables, or reference the same variables. So what sort of problems can be solved more naturally in which of the closure implementations?

  Read the article

• What common programming problems are best solved by using prototypes and closures?

  - by vemv

  As much as I understand both concepts, I can't see how can I take advantage of JavaScript's closures and prototypes aside from using them for creating instantiable and/or encapsulated class-like blocks (which seems more of a workaround than an asset to me) Other JS features such as functions-as-values or logical evaluation of non-booleans are much easier to fall in love with... What common programming problems are best solved by using propotypal inheritance and closures?

  Read the article

• Javascript Closures - What are the negatives?

  - by vol7ron

  Question: There seem to be many benefits to Closures, but what are the negatives (memory leakage? obfuscation problems? bandwidth increasage?)? Additionally, is my understanding of Closures correct? Finally, once closures are created, can they be destroyed? I've been reading a little bit about Javascript Closures. I hope someone a little more knowledgeable will guide my assertions, correcting me where wrong. Benefits of Closures: Encapsulate the variables to a local scope, by using an internal function. The anonymity of the function is insignificant. What I've found helpful is to do some basic testing, regarding local/global scope: <script type="text/javascript"> var global_text = ""; var global_count = 0; var global_num1 = 10; var global_num2 = 20; var global_num3 = 30; function outerFunc() { var local_count = local_count || 0; alert("global_num1: " + global_num1); // global_num1: undefined var global_num1 = global_num1 || 0; alert("global_num1: " + global_num1); // global_num1: 0 alert("global_num2: " + global_num2); // global_num2: 20 global_num2 = global_num2 || 0; // (notice) no definition with 'var' alert("global_num2: " + global_num2); // global_num2: 20 global_num2 = 0; alert("local_count: " + local_count); // local_count: 0 function output() { global_num3++; alert("local_count: " + local_count + "\n" + "global_count: " + global_count + "\n" + "global_text: " + global_text ); local_count++; } local_count++; global_count++; return output; } var myFunc = outerFunc(); myFunc(); /* Outputs: ********************** * local_count: 1 * global_count: 1 * global_text: **********************/ global_text = "global"; myFunc(); /* Outputs: ********************** * local_count: 2 * global_count: 1 * global_text: global **********************/ var local_count = 100; myFunc(); /* Outputs: ********************** * local_count: 3 * global_count: 1 * global_text: global **********************/ alert("global_num1: " + global_num1); // global_num1: 10 alert("global_num2: " + global_num2); // global_num2: 0 alert("global_num3: " + global_num3); // global_num3: 33 </script> Interesting things I took out of it: The alerts in outerFunc are only called once, which is when the outerFunc call is assigned to myFunc (myFunc = outerFunc()). This assignment seems to keep the outerFunc open, in what I would like to call a persistent state. Everytime myFunc is called, the return is executed. In this case, the return is the internal function. Something really interesting is the localization that occurs when defining local variables. Notice the difference in the first alert between global_num1 and global_num2, even before the variable is trying to be created, global_num1 is considered undefined because the 'var' was used to signify a local variable to that function. -- This has been talked about before, in the order of operation for the Javascript engine, it's just nice to see this put to work. Globals can still be used, but local variables will override them. Notice before the third myFunc call, a global variable called local_count is created, but it as no effect on the internal function, which has a variable that goes by the same name. Conversely, each function call has the ability to modify global variables, as noticed by global_var3. Post Thoughts: Even though the code is straightforward, it is cluttered by alerts for you guys, so you can plug and play. I know there are other examples of closures, many of which use anonymous functions in combination with looping structures, but I think this is good for a 101-starter course to see the effects. The one thing I'm concerned with is the negative impact closures will have on memory. Because it keeps the function environment open, it is also keeping those variables stored in memory, which may/may not have performance implications, especially regarding DOM traversals and garbage collection. I'm also not sure what kind of role this will play in terms of memory leakage and I'm not sure if the closure can be removed from memory by a simple "delete myFunc;." Hope this helps someone, vol7ron

  Read the article

• Doesn't JavaScript support closures with local variables?

  - by qollin

  I am very puzzled about this code: var closures = []; function create() { for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) { closures[i] = function() { alert("i = " + i); }; } } function run() { for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++) { closures[i](); } } create(); run(); From my understanding it should print 0,1,2,3,4 (isn't this the concept of closures?). Instead it prints 5,5,5,5,5. I tried Rhino and Firefox. Could someone explain this behavior to me? Thx in advance.

  Read the article

• Python serialize lexical closures?

  - by dsimcha

  Is there a way to serialize a lexical closure in Python using the standard library? pickle and marshal appear not to work with lexical closures. I don't really care about the details of binary vs. string serialization, etc., it just has to work. For example: def foo(bar, baz) : def closure(waldo) : return baz * waldo return closure I'd like to just be able to dump instances of closure to a file and read them back. Edit: One relatively obvious way that this could be solved is with some reflection hacks to convert lexical closures into class objects and vice-versa. One could then convert to classes, serialize, unserialize, convert back to closures. Heck, given that Python is duck typed, if you overloaded the function call operator of the class to make it look like a function, you wouldn't even really need to convert it back to a closure and the code using it wouldn't know the difference. If any Python reflection API gurus are out there, please speak up.

  Read the article

• Python Closures Example Code

  - by user336527

  I am learning Python using "Dive Into Python 3" book. I like it, but I don't understand the example used to introduce Closures in Section 6.5. I mean, I see how it works, and I think it's really cool. But I don't see any real benefit: it seems to me the same result could be achieved by simply reading in the rules file line by line in a loop, and doing search / replace for each line read. Could someone help me to: either understand why using closures in this example improves the code (e.g., easier to maintain, extend, reuse, or debug?) or suggest a source of some other real-life code examples where closures really shine? Thank you!

  Read the article

• Does Java need closures?

  - by Bill the Lizard

  I've been reading a lot lately about the next release of Java possibly supporting closures. I feel like I have a pretty firm grasp on what closures are, but I can't think of a solid example of how they would make an Object-Oriented language "better". Can anyone give me a specific use-case where a closure would be needed (or even preferred)?

  Read the article

• Trying to simplify some Javascript with closures

  - by mvalente

  Hi, I'm trying to simplify some JS code that uses closures but I am getting nowhere (probably because I'm not grokking closures) I have some code that looks like this: var server = http.createServer(function (request, response) { var httpmethods = { "GET": function() { alert('GET') }, "PUT": function() { alert('PUT') } }; }); And I'm trying to simplify it in this way: var server = http.createServer(function (request, response) { var httpmethods = { "GET": function() { alertGET() }, "PUT": function() { alertPUT() } }; }); function alertGET() { alert('GET'); } function alertPUT() { alert('PUT'); } Unfortunately that doesnt seem to work... Thus: - what am I doing wrong? - is it possible to do this? - how? TIA -- MV

  Read the article

• Closures in Java 7

  - by Bill Skapfman

  So is Java 7 finally going to get the closures? What's the latest news?

  Read the article

• Javascript Closures, Callbacks, This and That

  - by nazbot

  I am having some trouble getting a callback function to work. Here is my code: SomeObject.prototype.refreshData = function() { var read_obj = new SomeAjaxCall("read_some_data", { }, this.readSuccess, this.readFail); } SomeObject.prototype.readSuccess = function(response) { this.data = response; this.someList = []; for (var i = 0; i < this.data.length; i++) { var systemData = this.data[i]; var system = new SomeSystem(systemData); this.someList.push(system); } this.refreshList(); } Basically SomeAjaxCall is making an ajax request for data. If it works we use the callback 'this.readSuccess' and if it fails 'this.readFail'. I have figured out that 'this' in the SomeObject.readSuccess is the global this (aka the window object) because my callbacks are being called as functions and not member methods. My understanding is that I need to use closures to keep the 'this' around, however, I have not been able to get this to work. If someone is able show me what I should be doing I would appreciate it greatly. I am still wrapping my head around how closures work and specifically how they would work in this situation. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Does this incorporate JavaScript closures?

  - by alex

  In trying to learn JavaScript closures, I've confused myself a bit. From what I've gathered over the web, a closure is... Declaring a function within another function, and that inner function has access to its parent function's variables, even after that parent function has returned. Here is a small sample of script from a recent project. It allows text in a div to be scrolled up and down by buttons. var pageScroll = (function() { var $page, $next, $prev, canScroll = true, textHeight, scrollHeight; var init = function() { $page = $('#secondary-page'); // reset text $page.scrollTop(0); textHeight = $page.outerHeight(); scrollHeight = $page.attr('scrollHeight'); if (textHeight === scrollHeight) { // not enough text to scroll return false; }; $page.after('<div id="page-controls"><button id="page-prev">prev</button><button id="page-next">next</button></div>'); $next = $('#page-next'); $prev = $('#page-prev'); $prev.hide(); $next.click(scrollDown); $prev.click(scrollUp); }; var scrollDown = function() { if ( ! canScroll) return; canScroll = false; var scrollTop = $page.scrollTop(); $prev.fadeIn(500); if (scrollTop == textHeight) { // can we scroll any lower? $next.fadeOut(500); } $page.animate({ scrollTop: '+=' + textHeight + 'px'}, 500, function() { canScroll = true; }); }; var scrollUp = function() { $next.fadeIn(500); $prev.fadeOut(500); $page.animate({ scrollTop: 0}, 500); }; $(document).ready(init); }()); Does this example use closures? I know it has functions within functions, but is there a case where the outer variables being preserved is being used? Am I using them without knowing it? Thanks Update Would this make a closure if I placed this beneath the $(document).ready(init); statement? return { scrollDown: scrollDown }; Could it then be, if I wanted to make the text scroll down from anywhere else in JavaScript, I could do pageScroll.scrollDown(); I'm going to have a play around on http://www.jsbin.com and report back

  Read the article

• what are the benefits of closure, primarily for PHP?

  - by Patrick

  I am beginning the process of moving code over to PHP 5.3 and one of the most highly touted features of PHP 5.3 is the ability to use closures. My understanding of closures is that they allow anonymous functions, can be assigned to variable names, and have interesting scoping abilities. From my point of view the only seeming benefits in real world applications is the reduction of clutter in the namespace because closures are anonymous. Am I wrong in this? Should I be trying to put closures wherever I code? EDIT: I have already read this post on Javascript closures.

  Read the article

• Clojure closures and GC

  - by Ralph

  It is my understanding that the default ClassLoader used in Java (and thus, Clojure) holds on to pointers to any anonymous classes created, and thus, onto lambdas and closures. These are never garbage collected, and so represent a "memory leak". There is some investigation going on for Java 7 or 8 to adding an anonymous ClassLoader that will not retain references to these functions. In the mean time how are people dealing with writing long-running applications in languages like Clojure and Scala, that encourage the use of these constructs? Is there any possibility that Clojure could provide its own anonymous ClassLoader, extending the system one, but not holding onto created classes?

  Read the article

• Javascript closures with google geocoder

  - by DaNieL

  Hi all, i still have some problems with javascript closures, and input/output variables. Im playing with google maps api for a no profit project: users will place the marker into a gmap, and I have to save the locality (with coordinates) in my db. The problem comes when i need to do a second geocode in order to get a unique pairs of lat and lng for a location: lets say two users place the marker in the same town but in different places, I dont want to have the same locality twice in the database with differents coords. I know i can do the second geocode after the user select the locality, but i want to understand what am i mistaking here: // First geocoding, take the marker coords to get locality. geocoder.geocode( { 'latLng': new google.maps.LatLng($("#lat").val(), $("#lng").val()), 'language': 'it' }, function(results_1, status_1){ // initialize the html var inside this closure var html = ''; if(status_1 == google.maps.GeocoderStatus.OK) { // do stuff here for(i = 0, geolen = results_1[0].address_components.length; i != geolen) { // Second type of geocoding: for each location from the first geocoding, // i want to have a unique [lat,lan] geocoder.geocode( { 'address': results_1[0].address_components[i].long_name }, function(results_2, status_2){ // Here come the problem. I need to have the long_name here, and // 'html' var should increment. coords = results_2[0].geometry.location.toUrlValue(); html += 'some html to let the user choose the locality'; } ); } // Finally, insert the 'html' variable value into my dom... //but it never gets updated! } else { alert("Error from google geocoder:" + status_1) } } ); I tryed with: // Second type of geocoding: for each location from the first geocoding, i want // to have a unique [lat,lan] geocoder.geocode( { 'address': results_1[0].address_components[i].long_name }, (function(results_2, status_2, long_name){ // But in this way i'll never get results_2 or status_2, well, results_2 // get long_name value, status_2 and long_name is undefined. // However, html var is correctly updated. coords = results_2[0].geometry.location.toUrlValue(); html += 'some html to let the user choose the locality'; })(results_1[0].address_components[i].long_name) ); And with: // Second type of geocoding: for each location from the first geocoding, i want to have // a unique [lat,lan] geocoder.geocode( { 'address': results_1[0].address_components[i].long_name }, (function(results_2, status_2, long_name){ // But i get an obvious "results_2 is not defined" error (same for status_2). coords = results_2[0].geometry.location.toUrlValue(); html += 'some html to let the user choose the locality, that can be more than one'; })(results_2, status_2, results_1[0].address_components[i].long_name) ); Any suggestion? EDIT: My problem is how to pass an additional arguments to the geocoder inner function: function(results_2, status_2, long_name){ //[...] } becose if i do that with a clousure, I mess with the original parameters (results_2 and status_2)

  Read the article

• How to emulate closures in c

  - by Pierreten

  Is there a simple way?

  Read the article

• C# - closures over class fields inside an initializer?

  - by Richard Berg

  Consider the following code: using System; namespace ConsoleApplication2 { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var square = new Square(4); Console.WriteLine(square.Calculate()); } } class MathOp { protected MathOp(Func<int> calc) { _calc = calc; } public int Calculate() { return _calc(); } private Func<int> _calc; } class Square : MathOp { public Square(int operand) : base(() => _operand * _operand) // runtime exception { _operand = operand; } private int _operand; } } (ignore the class design; I'm not actually writing a calculator! this code merely represents a minimal repro for a much bigger problem that took awhile to narrow down) I would expect it to either: print "16", OR throw a compile time error if closing over a member field is not allowed in this scenario Instead I get a nonsensical exception thrown at the indicated line. On the 3.0 CLR it's a NullReferenceException; on the Silverlight CLR it's the infamous Operation could destabilize the runtime.

  Read the article

• Why not .NET-style delegates rather than closures in Java?

  - by h2g2java

  OK, this is going to be my beating a dying horse for the 3rd time. However, this question is different from my earlier two about closures/delegates, which asks about plans for delegates and what are the projected specs and implementation for closures. This question is about - why is the Java community struggling to define 3 different types of closures when we could simply steal the whole concept of delegates lock, stock and barrel from our beloved and friendly neighbour - Microsoft. There are two non-technical conclusions I would be very tempted to jump into: The Java community should hold up its pride, at the cost of needing to go thro convoluted efforts, by not succumbing to borrowing any Microsoft concepts or otherwise vindicate Microsoft's brilliance. Delegates is a Microsoft patented technology. Alright, besides the above two possibilities, Q1. Is there any weakness or inadequacy in msft-styled delegates that the three (or more) forms of closures would be addressing? Q2. I am asking this while shifting between java and c# and it intrigues me that c# delegates does exactly what I needed. Are there features that would be implemented in closures that are not currently available in C# delegates? If so what are they because I cannot see what I need more than what C# delegates has adequately provided me? Q3. I know that one of the concerns about implementing closures/delegates in java is the reduction of orthogonality of the language, where more than one way is exposed to perform a particular task. Is it worth the level convolution and time spent to avoid delegates just to ensure java retains its level of orthogonality? In SQL, we know that it is advisable to break orthogonality by frequently adequately satisfying only the 2nd normal form. Why can't java be subjected to reduction of orthogonality and OO-ness for the sake of simplicity? Q4. The architecture of JVM is technically constrained from implementing .NET-styled delegates. If this reason WERE (subjunctive to emphasize unlikelihood) true, then why can't the three closures proposals be hidden behind a simple delegate keyword or annotation: if we don't like to use @delegate, we could use @method. I cannot see how delegate statement format is more complex than the three closure proposals.

  Read the article

• How are Scala closures transformed to Java objects?

  - by iguana

  I'm currently looking at closure implementations in different languages. When it comes to Scala, however, I'm unable to find any documentation on how a closure is mapped to Java objects. It is well documented that Scala functions are mapped to FunctionN objects. I assume that the reference to the free variable of the closure must be stored somewhere in that function object (as it is done in C++0x, e.g.). I also tried compiling the following with scalac and then decompiling the class files with JD: object ClosureExample extends Application { def addN(n: Int) = (a: Int) => a + n var add5 = addN(5) println(add5(20)) } In the decompiled sources, I see an anonymous subtype of Function1, which ought to be my closure. But the apply() method is empty, and the anonymous class has no fields (which could potentially store the closure variables). I suppose the decompiler didn't manage to get the interesting part out of the class files... Now to the questions: Do you know how the transformation is done exactly? Do you know where it is documented? Do you have another idea how I could solve the mystery?

  Read the article

• How does java implement inner class closures?

  - by thecoop

  In Java an anonymous inner class can refer to variables in it's local scope: public class A { public void method() { final int i = 0; doStuff(new Action() { public void doAction() { Console.printf(i); // or whatever } }); } } My question is how is this actually implemented? How does i get to the anonymous inner doAction implementation, and why does it have to be final?

  Read the article

• Closures and universal quantification

  - by Apocalisp

  I've been trying to work out how to implement Church-encoded data types in Scala. It seems that it requires rank-n types since you would need a first-class const function of type forAll a. a -> (forAll b. b -> b). However, I was able to encode pairs thusly: import scalaz._ trait Compose[F[_],G[_]] { type Apply = F[G[A]] } trait Closure[F[_],G[_]] { def apply[B](f: F[B]): G[B] } def pair[A,B](a: A, b: B) = new Closure[Compose[PartialApply1Of2[Function1,A]#Apply, PartialApply1Of2[Function1,B]#Apply]#Apply, Identity] { def apply[C](f: A => B => C) = f(a)(b) } For lists, I was able to get encode cons: def cons[A](x: A) = { type T[B] = B => (A => B => B) => B new Closure[T,T] { def apply[B](xs: T[B]) = (b: B) => (f: A => B => B) => f(x)(xs(b)(f)) } } However, the empty list is more problematic and I've not been able to get the Scala compiler to unify the types. Can you define nil, so that, given the definition above, the following compiles? cons(1)(cons(2)(cons(3)(nil)))

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >