Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!carlton From: carlton@husc9.harvard.edu (david carlton) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: comp.lang.functional Message-ID: Date: 23 Feb 90 11:13:35 GMT References: <1830@skye.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Organization: Harvard University Science Center Lines: 28 In-reply-to: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 23 Feb 90 17:47:56 GMT In <1830@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: >In <1921@husc6.harvard.edu>, carlton@husc7.HARVARD.EDU (david carlton) writes: >> i) functions are first class objects. absolutely necessary. >> ii) there really _shouldn't_ be any side effects... yes, lisp and >> I would be willing to define functional languages for the purpose of >> the group as languages which satisfy i) and ii); so languages in which >> functions are first class objects, and in which there are no side >> effects. This would exclude lisp and scheme (which have their own >> newsgroups anyways) and ml (sorry...) but would at least allow the >> functional core of the above, as well as all of your other favorite >> languages (hope, miranda, haskell, etc.) >I think the group should be for functional programming and not just >for functional programming in pure functional languages. It should >not exclude the functional aspects of languages such as Lisp, Scheme, >and ML. Sorry if I was unclear about this... it's fine with me if the functional aspects of those languages get discussed. Like I said, it would allow the functional core of scheme, lisp, ML. Heck, I use scheme's notation myself most of the time when writing out things on paper - I think it's pretty. David Carlton carlton@husc4.harvard.edu husc6!husc4!carlton