why () is () and [] is [] work in other way?

[Adam Skutt]

On Apr 26, 10:18 am, rusi <rustompm... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:42 pm, Adam Skutt <ask... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In a mathematical sense, you're saying that given f(x) = x+2, using
> > f(x) is somehow more "direct" (whatever the hell that even means) than
> > using 'x+2'.  That's just not true.  We freely and openly interchange
> > them all the time doing mathematics.  Programming is no different.
>
> If f(x) and x+2 are freely interchangeable then you have referential
> transparency, a property that only purely functional languages have.
> In python:

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to explain.  Steven is
trying to claim that there's some sort of meaningful difference
between calling an operation/algorithm/function by some name versus
handing out its definition.  I was merely pointing out that we
routinely substitute the two when it is appropriate to do so.

My apologies if you somehow took that to mean that I was implying
there was referential transparency here.  I couldn't think of a better
example for what I was trying to say.

Adam