# Fix1 (analogue of Base.Fix2)

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fix1-analogue-of-base-fix2/10161>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** question\
**Created:** [April 4, 2018, 3:46pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fix1-analogue-of-base-fix2/10161 "2018-04-04T15:46:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rdeits](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/rdeits/32/286_2.png) [@rdeits](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/rdeits)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 4:31pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fix1-analogue-of-base-fix2/10161/2 "2018-04-04T16:31:50Z")

</div>

On the other hand, [https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/24990](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/24990) would turn `Fix2(f, x)` into `f(_, x)` and the hypothetical `Fix1(f, x)` into `f(x, _)` which I personally like quite a lot.

I guess another question would be whether you want the result of `Fix1(f, x)` to be `y -> f(x, y)` as above or the more general `(args...) -> f(x, args...)` ? `Fix2` seems more clear in its purpose, since it assumes that `f` has exactly two arguments, but it feels odd for `Fix1` to make the same assumption.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fix1-analogue-of-base-fix2/10161)._