Anonymous user
Talk:First-class functions: Difference between revisions
→Even C could?: what a pity - :D
(→Even C could?: Almost) |
(→Even C could?: what a pity - :D) |
||
Line 51:
::::I could not get away from the thought, when reading about First Class Functions, that the definition was a little hazy, and the only certainty was that if you had to do as much as you would have to in C, then you were doing too much to belong to the set of languages that could claim to support FCF. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::What a pity. "Syntax" constraints set by Dmitry-kazakov of course rule out C seriously this time (using preprocessor to extend syntax someway? :D too much effort anyway). The classification anyway is not clear. Dmitry says that it does not matter what happens under the "cover", and this makes it clearer, but it is also an interpretation of the definition (as stated). I.e. the definition explicitly prohibits the call for eval/exec, but it is obvious that a (belated) eval-uation is hidden behind the scene, e.g. the Python lambda could be "simulated" storing the piece of code into a string, specifying the dummy symbol, which will be changed to the real one when the "string" will be used, i.e. evaluated, ''against'' an argument... (I suppose internally it is done through local binding of the dummy symbol to the some thing which is bound to the argument, or something like that) ... --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
== Closures? ==
| |||