Content deleted Content added
→New 'Comparison' Section has wrong focus: A good suggestion. |
|||
Line 176:
I agree with Macrakis that first-class functions are a lot wider topic than anonymous functions. To show that I can simply mention the fact that function may return ordinary OR anonymous function. So in theory - language can support first-class functions by operating only with ordinary functions. This illustrates that in general first-class functions has nothing to do with anonymous functions. However in practice first-class functions are much more useful when used in conjuntion with anonymous functions. So at most - anonymous functions can be only sub-topic of first-class functions. (Albeit we can`t ignore possibility that mentioning anonymous functions here can obfuscate understanding of first-class functions) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.32.222.96|84.32.222.96]] ([[User talk:84.32.222.96|talk]]) 09:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I agree with [[Special:Contributions/84.32.222.96|84.32.222.96]], but I do feel that '''first-class function''' is an ill-defined concept. At present, the article lists four things a language must be able to do before it can be said to support first-order functions; many languages support the last three, but dynamic function code assembly by treating program code as just regular structured data (which I believe is the first property) is specific to interpreted languages (e.g. in the Lisp or Forth families) and therefore quite different from the other three. Someone who knows only Lisp, or only C#, or only C++, won't see this, of course. So while I'm opposed to this merge, I do think it's important to consider whether the present article describes a well-defined term in the first place. [[User:Rp|Rp]] ([[User talk:Rp|talk]]) 16:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
== Higher-order functions in Perl ==
| |||