Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: On whether C has first-class composable functions Message-ID: <24790:Jan3022:38:1291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 30 Jan 91 22:38:12 GMT References: <6800@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <15626:Jan2904:11:0191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 19 In article Benjamin Chase writes: > If you feel that such an implementation is trivial, how do you feel > about implementing the version that I described in an earlier post? Ben, you're confusing two issues. One is the ease of implementing composable functions in C. The other is the difficulty of implementing polymorphic functions in C. Once you realize you're confusing the two issues, you should realize that your complaints have nothing to do with the subject at hand. (To answer the question, though: AT&T's cfront is a quite usable implementation of what yuckies these days call ``objects,'' including the sort of polymorphism you're looking for. It does take a bit of work to implement objects; my shortest respectable C macro set for the job is a few hundred lines. There, now you know how I feel about implementing what you described in an earlier post.) ---Dan