Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Why aren't CL functions 1st class objects?
Message-ID: <3443@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Sep 90 18:46:33 GMT
References: <1990Sep13.202219.21047@oracle.com> <3437@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 19

In article <3437@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>But to show functions in CL aren't 1st-class you need a definition
>of "1st-class" that wasn't devised just to attack Common Lisp.  And
>if you look at such lists, they're something like this:
>
>   - All objects can be the arguments of procedures.
>   - All objects can be returned as the results of procedures. 
>   - All objects can be the subject of assignment statements.
>   - All objects can be tested for equality.
>
>This list is the modern form o"Pop design philosophy" list (1986)

Should be some other year, probably 1968.  It's in one of the
early volumes of the "machine Intelligence" series edited by
Donald Michie.

Sorry about that.

-- Jeff