Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Why aren't CL functions 1st class objects? Message-ID: Date: 29 Sep 90 16:31:00 GMT References: <1990Sep13.202219.21047@oracle.com> <3437@skye.ed.ac.uk> <3806@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <3450@skye.ed.ac.uk> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 18 In article <3450@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: > - Objects have the right to remain anonymous. > - Objects have an identity that is independent of any > names by which they may be known. > - Objects can be stored in variables and data structures > without losing their identity. > - Objects may be returned as the result of a procedure call. > - Objects never die. > This too is true of functions in Common Lisp (with a possible quibble > on identity as in the FLET and EQ example in my previous article). It appears that this is true of functions in C, and I wouldn't want to argue that C has first-class functions. (the anonymity clause can be satisfied by packing the object away in a file, making it static, and having it returned by a function of known name that's global within that file) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com