🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19468:Dec2100:23:0790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu
(Dan Bernstein) writes:

>Of course, a more complete implementation would manage struct fun
>storage, possibly with garbage collection.

Yep. A more complete implementation would effectively be an interpreter
that can handle arbitrary-depth function composition. This must be what
you mean when you talk about real-world programming. Sigh.

I believe the original question had something like scheme in mind, when
referring to first-class-functions and composition. In scheme, we write

	(define compose
	  (lambda (f g)
	    (lambda (x)
	      (f (g x)))))

this looks uninteresting, except that the innermost (composing) closure
preserves its scope information (environment) as a part of this
composition as well.

[Jeff Dalton elequently addressed this issue which has partly to do with
the definition of the term. Jeff??]

>You were saying?

Hmm.

oz
---
Where the stream runneth smoothest,   | Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca 
the water is deepest.  - John Lyly    | UUCP: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz