# 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:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tamas\_Papp](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tamas_papp/32/25949_2.png) [@Tamas\_Papp](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Tamas_Papp)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2018, 5:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/fix1-analogue-of-base-fix2/10161/4 "2018-04-04T17:14:47Z")

</div>

I would distinguish

1. having a parametric type that embodies partial application, eg `Fix2` above,

2. surface syntax for partial application, eg the proposed syntax with `_`.

(1) exposes the components of what would be an otherwise opaque closure, and allows neat things like a `show` method for certain function/argument combinations (this is what I want to use it for, actually).

(2) is syntactic sugar.

They can be done independently.

---

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