hemanth
Constant definition
I think it's not correct to define a constant as a variable that can only be assigned once; that's the mechanism that most programming languages use to implement constants, but it's not a definition. I would just define it as a symbolic name for a value.
Constant is also the name of a type that is a monad. I don't know if that should be mentioned on the doc though
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016, 2:06 AM Olivier Gérardin [email protected] wrote:
I think it's not correct to define a constant as a variable that can only be assigned once; that's the mechanism that most programming languages use to implement constants, but it's not a definition. I would just define it as a symbolic name for a value.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon/issues/78, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB-4JnmIZ9lmKsfqGQh8MAVTYBxlHCeks5qZc4YgaJpZM4JU71- .
I guess the current definition is more of const than the concept. If we define it as a symbolic name for a value then what distinguishes it from a variable?
The only difference is that a variable's value can change over time. But we know that in pure functional world there is no such thing as a variable anyway :)
In a pure functional world variables are like math variables. If you say x = 1 then later say it's 2 you're just being a ridiculous lier
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 12:25 AM Olivier Gérardin [email protected] wrote:
The only difference is that a variable's value can change over time. But we know that in pure functional world there is no such thing as a variable anyway :)
— You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon/issues/78#issuecomment-235819827, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB-4NXo-M7-ZZusQUalgMkTzUOjNwELks5qaFl3gaJpZM4JU71- .
That is, they can be replaced with the values that they represent without affecting the result.
true, but this will work if only n is known value:
const fact = n => n < 2 ? 1 : n * fact(n-1)
