On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 11:05, Martin Berger wrote:
> > Perhaps because you're a type theorist? <g>
> 
> being a type theorist has many disadvantages ...
> 
> > C not only *does* have function types, it has
> > first class function values just like ML does.
> 
> well, i'm not so sure about this for two reasons.
> 
> firstly, NULL-pointers 
> 
>     (A --> T) + Error

Agree. I glossed over that :-)

> secondly, there's the "location restriction". maybe it's an
> issue of taste, but one might argue that for function really
> being first class -- as in lambda calculi, whenever we have
> a piece of code C with free variable x_1 of type T_1, ...,
> x_n of type T_n, then we can abstract and form
> (lambda x_1 ... x_n . C), as we can in ML, but not
> in C/Java/C++.

Neither ML nor C is lambda calculus: they use distinct syntax.
ML is closer of course, but in C you can always abstract a piece
of code even if it means passing all the variables in the 
environment one at a time.

-- 
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