Anonymous user
Talk:First-class functions: Difference between revisions
→The C hack: pointer
(→The C hack: pointer: Blurry.) |
|||
Line 114:
:In many discussions on first-class functions the line seems to be drawn to ''exclude'' the [[wp:Talk:First-class function|C language]] capabilities as being too "low-level". Other languages gain merit for hiding the underlying mechanisms a bit more. I have tried to highlight what makes a first-class function in many minds is that functions are used as naturally as other types in the language by also creating the task [[First-class functions/Use numbers analogously]], but I realise that it is only an attempt. (Someone could use a numbers in a convoluted way just to match what ''needs'' to to be done for functions for example). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:: Of course functions are not first class in C, hence the code being not portable, I'm not disputing that. But what the code does isn't what one'd normally call a "function pointer" either, that's what the other C code did. If you cared enough to correct the heading, might as well use a ''correct'' heading. "Non-portable function body duplication" or some such would be much more accurate. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 06:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||