No I think your point is good, it just wasn't contradictory and I think that was your intent. Defining FP is a dark art :)
maybe FP should be explained as `rules not values`. in scheme it's common to negate the function to be applied, or curry some expression or partially compose / thread rules/logic to get a potential future value that did nothing yet
alt Hacker News
maybe FP should be explained as `rules not values`. in scheme it's common to negate the function to be applied, or curry some expression or partially compose / thread rules/logic to get a potential future value that did nothing yet