Content deleted Content added
→Removed "merge this with Function object" note: sorry for multiple edits |
|||
Line 89:
::If the example is bad, then it needs to be rewritten. It doesn't mean the article has to be merged with an unrelated random other article. You might as well merge it with [[Lambda Calculus]]. Also, the example isn't a bad one, and it doesn't even closely resemble a function object, as it is expressed in ML, '''which isn't object-oriented'''. If in your view closures and function objects are the same thing, you need to get your concepts straight. [[User:Wlievens|Wouter Lievens]] 10:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::From my point of view, keeping Closure as its own topic is useful from a searching perspective. I'm realatively new to computer science concepts, and when I came across 'closure' repeatedly in literature (and without a definition), a search on Wikipedia was immediately successful. If you don't already '''know''' that a closure is related to a [[function object]], it would be a bit harder to find. The articles should definitely reference each other; something like "A closure is very similar in most respects to a [[function object]]" in this article, and "Function objects are related to the more general concept of a [[Closure (computer science)|closure]]" in the other. From what I can tell of those to articles, they are separate (though related) things, and seem to deserve separate treatment. [[User:Radiantmatrix|RadiantMatrix]] 20:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:My concepts of function objects and closure are those put in each article.
| |||