On Wed, 23 May 2007, Loup Vaillant wrote :

> (...)

>> * Anonymous functions are still beyond most of them.
>
> That sounds surprising, for anonymous function are no different  
> from named ones:
>
> 5;; (* a value *)
> fun x -> x+1;; (* another value, which happens to be a function *)

Those are typically the comments of a "used-to-functional- 
programming" guy.
It certainly doesn't match what a beginner would think (no beginner  
will call a
function a "value").

Or do you really think that seeing functions as first-class object is  
the natural way ?
IMHO this is not the case, and therefore not the case of a beginner.

To my eyes, there are (I mean, "in human mind" or at least in an  
ocaml beginner's mind)
values AND functions. A function turns into a value (in the mind of  
the programmer)
only when it is used by a higher order function.

> a = 5;; (* a bound value *)
> b = fun x -> x+1;; (* another bound value, which happens to be a  
> function *)
>
> Did your students used map and fold-like functions much? These almost
> require anonymous functions.

Indeed, using map and fold puts the focus on the fact that functions  
_can_ be values.
Thus their importance in a pedagogical context.

Maybe all this is just a matter of belief...

Regards,
Vincent