Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!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: <29224:Feb419:06:0191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 91 19:06:01 GMT
References: <1991Feb2.012304.2425@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <14484:Feb206:54:1191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Feb4.160639.2766@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 30

In article <1991Feb4.160639.2766@spool.cs.wisc.edu> quale@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale) writes:
> Dan, sometimes I think we don't speak the same language.

Look, static allocation is not an ``arbitrary limit,'' and when you say
``fixed, arbitrary limit'' people will assume that the programmer used
some fixed number, say 1000, as a limit. That's not true here.

Are you going to claim that Fortran has ``arbitrary limits'' because
doesn't have dynamic allocation? That's a restriction upon power: it's
something the language can't do. It's not a fixed limit, and it's not an
arbitrary limit.

If you go around claiming that just because language designer X didn't
provide for your pet feature Y, language Z must have ``arbitrary
limits,'' then you're the one misusing words.

> The number of functions in a C program is limited to EXACTLY the number of
> functions that are provided at compile time.  This number cannot be altered
> (most crucially, increased) at run time.

Fine, so call it a limit if you're desperate. It's not a fixed limit,
and it's not an arbitrary limit. Translation: It's not something that a
real-world programmer will consider a limit.

> How do you know, at compile time, EXACTLY how many composed functions
> I want?

I don't. You're the one writing the program.

---Dan