[Scriptor]

That's because your code assumes those convenience functions exist while the parent's code writes out the anonymous functions.

The direct translation of yours' to Clojure would be:

    (filter valid-person? (map init-person names))

Meanwhile, the direct Haskell translation of the parent comment is:

    filter (\p -> isValid p) (map (\n -> Person n) names)

[aninhumer]

No one would ever write the latter, because (\p -> isValid p) is equivalent to isValid.

However you're right that the function names would probably be a little longer in practice, and I've edited my example to reflect that. (But they're not convenience functions, they just have longer names due to Haskell's more limited namespacing)

[junke]

Not a Haskell expert, but maybe monomorphism restriction can require you to perform an eta abstraction. Just saying.

[wyager]

Huh? No, anyone who writes it in Haskell would not use those lambda abstractions. You would just use "filter isValid (map Person names)".

[Scriptor]

I'm assuming Person is a record constructor, is isValid here a field in that record or another function?

[prodigal_erik]

Haskell doesn't distinguish the two. If you define Person with named fields including isValid, you automatically get a function named isValid that returns that field, or you can write your own isValid function that examines the whole Person.