Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!percy!data!kend
From: kend@data.UUCP (Ken Dickey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: On whether C has first-class composable functions
Message-ID: <442@data.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jan 91 20:16:52 GMT
References: <19418@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <23986:Dec2703:47:1390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Dec29.110202.3862@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se> <17557:Jan219:22:3191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: Microcosm, Beaverton, OR
Lines: 25

brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>I think we all agree on what ``first-class,'' ``composable,'' and
>``function'' mean. A first-class object can be passed as arguments and
>assigned to variables. A function is something for which there exists
>one evaluation operator for each value of some type. A composable
>function also supports a composition operation with the obvious
>definition. This is all reasonably standard terminology.

There is an important property of "first-class" objects missing here.
A first-class object does not have to be named.  

>To sum up: ``C has first-class composable functions with reasonable
>efficiency and without ridiculously complicated syntax'' is good enough
>for me.

>---Dan

Strike "first-class".  C functions do not have the status of numbers because
they must be named before use.

By the way, what function would "apply(compose(compose,f),x);" return in C?
Strike "composable"?

-Ken Dickey				kend@data.uucp