Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!uwvax!picard.cs.wisc.edu!quale
From: quale@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: On whether C has first-class composable functions
Message-ID: <1991Feb2.012304.2425@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 91 01:23:04 GMT
References: <305@smds.UUCP> <1991Jan26.132913.11358@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <3576:Jan2622:55:2991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 19

In article <3576:Jan2622:55:2991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>
>There were two other portable C implementations (by Kris, I believe);
>they allowed the usual C syntax for function calls, and because C
>functions are statically allocated, the compositions had to be
>statically allocated. Only one of those implementations had a fixed
>(``arbitrary'') limit.

I don't understand the last 2 sentences.  They are mutually contradictory.
The functions are statically allocated, and this ISN'T an arbitrary limit?

Explanation, please.

[ An additional note:  I suffered from some braindamage in the C prototype
  I posted earlier.  It should read
      int (*compose)(int (*f)(int), int (*g)(int))
  but you folks probably spotted that right off. ]

-- Doug Quale