Talk:First-class functions: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Even C could?: Nope.) |
(→Even C could?: All you need is call?) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
:Some notes to the list. The list rather refers to operations on functional types. Neither of is actually required to make functions first-class. What is required is that a function were a type and there existed objects of this type, with '''some''' operations defined on this type. Whether these operations include any concrete operation beyond "call me," is up to the language. Only "call me" is essential (that makes the object a function). Granted, almost certainly a reasonable implementation will provide operations from the list. --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 17:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
:Some notes to the list. The list rather refers to operations on functional types. Neither of is actually required to make functions first-class. What is required is that a function were a type and there existed objects of this type, with '''some''' operations defined on this type. Whether these operations include any concrete operation beyond "call me," is up to the language. Only "call me" is essential (that makes the object a function). Granted, almost certainly a reasonable implementation will provide operations from the list. --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 17:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks Dmitry. That is a valid point. I guess if a language has problems with the example but can reason, (making a better case than C), why it has first class functions, then they should make their case too. Maybe they could cover the four points by other means. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||