Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
m reply |
||
Line 2:
I have problems with this. The main thing is that the attempt to find an analog in C seems pointless to me. I wouldn't try to find an analog of 'break' in Lisp, although I'm sure I could find something not too dissimilar if I strained hard enough. In turn, I don't think it's conducive to understanding of the first class function to compare it to something like int (*f)(). Of course it is perfectly feasible to write C code to write a bit of C, compile it, put it into a dynamically linked library, open the library and execute it--in fact, this was even easier in [[BCPL programming language|BCPL]], one of C's percursors, which had extensive dynamic module load and execution capabilities built into its standard library. However this isn't really a first class function, it's just a neat programming trick.
----
Well, I was trying to pre-empty a potential argument that the presence of function pointers in C is the same as having first class functions. What are the crucial properties a function object has to have in order to qualify as first-class? You can pass function pointers as arguments to other functions, and you can store them in memory and other data structures; in these respects function pointers and first class functions are indeed similar. What distinguishes function pointers from first class functions is that the only values a function pointer can take on are the addressed of functions defined at compile/link time. However, due to the presence of casts (nothing stops you from casting arbitrary pointers to function pointers), this is not literally true, but those casts are really only useful for in-memory compilation. Since C directly supports function pointers and casts in the language, it makes sense to point out that these features don't add up to first class functions, with which they nevertheless share some properties. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] 07:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
| |||