Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!BRFAPESP.BITNET!UNBCIC
From: UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Functional Programming
Message-ID: <9103271402.AA16072@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 25 Mar 91 21:25:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: UNBCIC%BRFAPESP.BITNET@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 62

> I am glad that you have said this.  I don't like to be picky, but I do
> want to say that it was kind of confusing to start your previous message
> with "hehehe, I'll show you that you are wrong".

Sorry. My intention was to show that your arguments were not new. Just that.

> These are the examples I suggested.  However, the fact that these
> examples arose in the context of functional programming does not mean
> that they ARE functional programming.

I didn't want to say that they ARE functional programming. I'm saying, instead,
that they are PART of functional programming.

> If you claim that these examples ARE "the functional paradigm", then

Since I don't claim this...

> you cannot make the statement that these are "operators to improve
> functional programming."  You must instead claim that these are
> operators necessary for the implementation of functional programming.

Sorry. Better wait and bring you all the reference.

> I. We show that the functional paradigm does not imply the style I suggest.
>
> The following Scheme function:

> (define (factorial n)
>   (if (= n 1)
>       1
>       (* n (factorial (- n 1)))))

> is functional, since it does not make any assignments.  However, it is
> not written in the style I suggest.  That would look like:

> (define (factorial n)
>   (accumulate * 1 (enumerate-interval 1 n)))

The first example is a poor use of functional programmi~rng. Yes, it avoids
side effects, but that's not all we want to do. Yes example is a true
functional program. That's why I claim what you suggest is functional
programming.

> Part II is important because it means we can program without explicit
> control structures in a language like Forth without first making Forth
> a functional language.  I am also planning on using this style in C.

Nothing is pure. You are pressuposing that anything that, by one way or other,
have non-functional elements is non-functional. Then, almost everything is
nothing. Right?

> This is an interesting example, but I hope you understand that it is
> not actually in the style I suggest, and so I will not be pursuing it.

If you can program without any IFs, ok. I was suggesting a better structure to
use instead of IFs, if you don't like IFs.

> Adam

                              (8-DCS)
Daniel C. Sobral
UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET