Talk:First-class function: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:43, 24 August 2009

Revision as of 14:07, 24 August 2009

Line 158:

::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)

::: Did you read my summary of the references [[Talk:First-class_object#In_references|there]]? Some sources consider functions in C first class, even though C has no function literals. This was actually pointed out repeatedly by multiple editors. [[User:Pohta ce-am pohtit|Pcap]] [[User_talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit|<small>ping</small>]] 05:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Your references there are all about first-class functions, not about other kinds of first-class objects (types/classes, structs, arrays, etc.), which is what I was talking about in my comment above. --[[User:Macrakis|macrakis]] ([[User talk:Macrakis|talk]]) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)