On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 04:43, Martin Berger wrote:
> > And even more so due to the lack of real closures, 
> 
> wouldn't you say that the lack of real closures is a consequence
> of java's lack of a proper function space arrow, rather than a
> separate issue? i don't see how you could have ocaml's full --->
> without real closures, but maybe i'm missing something.

Perhaps because you're a type theorist? <g>
C not only *does* have function types, it has
first class function values just like ML does.

The two differences are: functions can't be 
lexically scoped (so all the closures are trivial)
and there's no garbage collector (so pointers to
automatic variables are unsafe).

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@tpg.com.au
snail:25/85c Wigram Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850. Checkout Felix: http://felix.sf.net




-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners