Function Currying

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:eje8hg$10on$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>
> Hmm, sounds legitimate but I still don't quiet get it. Can you give a more 
> concrete example?
> I mean, I can always save a command using a nested function. Why would I 
> choose to call a curry template for something like, say:
>
> void func( type arg )
> {
>     doSomething(arg);
>     ......
>     doSomething(arg);
>     ..
>     doSomething(arg);
>     ..
>     doSomething(arg);
>
>     //I'm tired of this ..
>     //call nested functions to the rescue ..
>     void doit()
>     {
>         doSomething(arg);
>     }
>
>     doit();
>     doit();
>     ...
>     doit();
> }
>
> I'm more confident using a nested function, at least I know what's going 
> on. With a curried function, I'd be more like "gee I'm not sure what's 
> going on but I hope this works ..".

Go ahead and try to return doit() from func(), or save it somewhere where it 
will be accessed after func() returns ;)  I mean, you _could_ do it without 
templates using a struct as the context (much as Walter's posted code does), 
but you'd be seriously restricting yourself to functions/delegates with 
certain signatures.