Content deleted Content added
m Dating comment by 216.165.132.252 - "→The notion of "dynamically creating functions" is grossly inaccurate.: " |
|||
Line 27:
: I don't think an eval function, Lisp macros, C macros, C++ templates, code generation, or Java / .NET reflection are features that belong in this list. As remarked above it would be good to explicitly make this clear was well. [[User:Rp|Rp]] ([[User talk:Rp|talk]]) 08:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO a more serious problem here is the fact that AFAIK this statement is not supported by the references. The only reference I see for this article is Scott's Programming Language Pragmatics. I own a copy of that book and I was just reading it the other day. I'm pretty sure Scott says that C *does* have first-class functions. He gives a clear definition of first-class, second-class and third-class objects and none of the definitions makes any reference to whether you can "dynamically" create an object. It does require that in order to be a first-class object, the language must allow you to use it as the return value of a function (which C allows). If anyone objects to this analysis then I suggest they dig up another reference that supports their view. [[Special:Contributions/216.165.132.252|216.165.132.252]] ([[User talk:216.165.132.252|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==C has closures==
| |||