Content deleted Content added
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) |
TexasAndroid (talk | contribs) →Removed "merge this with Function object" note: disambiguation link repair (You can help!) |
||
Line 113:
::Good now I see your distinction. But I don't think this is large enough to warrant two separate articles. Obviously not everyone sees this distinction, for one. It is true that some closures that are never function objects, and some function objects have no relation with closure. But it does not mean they cannot be discussed in one article. Certainly, the usage of a function object is similar to that of closure. And I still think, like the above post, discussing the two concepts is helpful for readers. Take [[negative and non-negative numbers]]. A negative number is never positive, but discussing two numbers in one place helps readers understand the two concepts. If you think a term function object would cause confusion, we can simply rename it. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 23:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
:::I think each distinct subject deserves its own page. What can possibly be gained from merging these (rather unrelated) pages together? More precisely, it would introduce serious problems in terms of categorization. For instance, [[function object]] would belong in <nowiki>[[Category: Object-Oriented Programming]]</nowiki>, whereas [[closure (computer science)]] definately does not. In analogy, we might as well put [[President]] and [[monarch|King]] in the same page, as they're related too (both are heads of state). [[User:Wlievens|Wouter Lievens]] 09:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Another reason why these can't be merged, is because of terminology tradition. Your average C++ or Java programmer has ''never'' even heard of a closure, whereas the average Scheme/Lisp/ML programmer will think function object is a contradiction in terminis. [[User:Wlievens|Wouter Lievens]] 10:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| |||