From c52dd21d4412d2c6fce88bae58d5232c4a0a533f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 09:53:07 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] 0.3.5 lambda/index.md Enough fussing with Symbolic Form for now --- docs/lambda/index.md | 20 +++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/lambda/index.md b/docs/lambda/index.md index 8e13a9b..646d4bd 100644 --- a/docs/lambda/index.md +++ b/docs/lambda/index.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ - + 0.3.5 2024-12-21T17:51Z @@ -88,11 +88,20 @@ constant list structures. Intended interpretations for them are not self-evident, however suggestive the form might be. Purpose for a symbolic form is revealed only in the context of its usage. -When a symbolic form is evaluated or applied directly, the symbolic -form is preserved. +The harmony of symbolic form and applicative-expression, when that +interpretation is the case, is anchored on the fact that the computational +interpretation of `f :: g :: x` is tantamount to the Frugalese applicative +expression `f g x`, both being right-associative and equivalent to `f(g x)`. + +The oFrugal definitions of applicative-procedure abstraction rely on that +structural nicety, facilitating abstraction of applicative-function scripts +and confirmation of their operation. #### 2.2.1 Examples of symbolic-form preservation +When a symbolic form is evaluated or applied directly, the symbolic +form is preserved. + For example, the oFrugal expression ```ML @@ -132,7 +141,7 @@ itself a symbolic form even though `x` may be an ob of any form. As is done in the examples (2.2.1), symbolic forms are usually written in canonical form, omitting unnecessary parentheses. -## 3. Functional Abstraction +## 3. Functional Abstraction Heuristics \[Author's Note\]: Brief introduction to the two forms. @@ -176,6 +185,7 @@ from time to time.