Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!kinnersley
From: kinnersley@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bill Kinnersley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Complexity of syntax
Message-ID: <27534.276e5bd3@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 90 00:11:31 GMT
References: <9012061208.AA08577@decpa.pa.dec.com> <1990Dec9.013923.14456@cs.umn.edu> <20@garth.UUCP>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 27

In article <20@garth.UUCP>, smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) writes:
> 
> How many languages support arrays of functions returning arrays of
> functions returning arrays of functions..... [*]
> 

But it seems to me that this will single out languages that fit a particular
mold, rather than languages with power. If you want a language with

1) Functions as first-class data (most applicative languages)

2) Arrays (mostly imperative languages)

3) Strong type system

there's nothing left but Algol-68 and C.


If you're satisfied with lists in place of arrays, that makes it easier.

Icon, for example, will let you make lists of functions and return them
from functions.  But it has no type declarations.

Otherwise, ML, Miranda and Russell.

-- 
--Bill Kinnersley