Revision as of 21:45, 16 November 2014 edit Paddy3118 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 843 edits →Section "Case study: function composition" is not worth having. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:42, 29 November 2014 edit undo Rp (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,953 edits →Section "Case study: function composition" is not worth having. Next edit →
Line 434: == Section "Case study: function composition" is not worth having. == This language specific section does not have enough merit to be included as it only states the capabilities and limitations of one language and will only encourage a host of other language specific entries. It is better to delete it. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118\|talk]]) 21:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC) :Agreed, but it may still be worth noting that in languages (e.g. Algol 68, C, C#) which treat functions as values (passing them to and returning them from functions, assigning them to variables and inside data structures) without being able to create new function bodies at runtime (lacking ''eval''), higher order functions such as function composition can still be used to create new functions at runtime. [[User:Rp\|Rp]] ([[User talk:Rp\|talk]]) 22:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:First-class function: Difference between revisions