Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Complexity of syntax
Message-ID: <18747:Jan220:02:1091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 2 Jan 91 20:02:10 GMT
References: <304@coatimundi.cs.arizona.edu> <1990Dec29.101233.1894@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se>
Organization: IR
Lines: 23

In article <1990Dec29.101233.1894@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se> augustss@cs.chalmers.se (Lennart Augustsson) writes:
  [ included in a definition of ``first-class'': ]
> be expressible without giving it a
> name

First-class refers to semantics alone. Why are you trying to include
syntax?

> (this a crucial point where C fails for functions,
  [ you can't write an unnamed function ]

Huh? Who cares? To get an unnamed function you just have to declare the
function and not use its name. The fact that you can't write an unnamed
function is not a problem for programmers.

In contrast, pre-ANSI C structures were truly not first-class objects.
You couldn't pass them by value. This made some problems genuinely more
difficult.

This is just another example of why syntax is a lot less important than
semantics.

---Dan