R.lt(6)to test if the following value is less than 6. I think I've even used it like that to explain currying to colleagues. :P
R(x), all of Ramda's functions are partially applied with
x, and the results are returned in an object. That's an interesting way of doing things. :P
R.pipe, there's nothing special about Ramda functions; you can pass anything you want. So, while you could do something like `R(3).someRfunc, the only way I know to make it more generic so that you could apply any other function you like is with a stateful registration process.
Ritself as the function.
R.maptakes it's data last, because it's a much more common case to want to create a partially applied
mapwith a mapper, than it is to create a partially applied map with it's data, waiting for different mappers to be passed-in
fnucsince I first saw it. But I've never been quite convinced.
map(square)seems an obvious abstraction, and currying is familiar to most functional programmers in that format.
lt(x, y) !== lt(x)(y)! But I just feel the settled-upon order of arguments is wrong. I disagree with your statement that
lt(10, 12)is the only comfortable way to write "is 10 less than 12", because under that reasoning
map(arr, func)would also be the preferrable version.
subtract, they're partially applied
subtract, I had just assumed the arguments were in the reverse order that they're currently in.