Content deleted Content added
m →Merge anonymous function here: almost |
No edit summary |
||
Line 154:
:* [[First-class object]] should probably redirect here as that page is full of [[WP:OR]]. The concept is almost never discussed separately, but introduced in the discussion about the first-classness of functions. (I need to have closer look at some type theory stuff first, because one can have first-class [[type constructor]]s for instance in the [[calculus of constructions]], i.e. you can pass them to functions.)
: [[User:Pohta ce-am pohtit|Pcap]] [[User_talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit|<small>ping</small>]] 03:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
::First-classness is interesting for many kinds of objects other than functions. For example, in most static languages -- such as [[Simula 67]] (the first object-oriented language) and [[Ada]] -- types/classes are not first-class objects; in early versions of [[C programming language|C]], structs (records) were not first-class objects -- they could not be passed as parameters or returned as values, only pointers to them could be; in early versions of [[Lisp]], arrays were not first-class objects -- they were properties of symbols (we called them 'atoms' then); etc. So I strongly disagree that [[First-class function]] and [[First-class object]] should be merged.
::As for the relationship between first-class functions and function literals, it is surely not an equality. But anonymous function literals are a pretty trivial subject compared to first-class functions, so I think it makes sense to treat them as a section within [[first-class functions]]. --[[User:Macrakis|macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
| |||