🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25449:Jan823:00:2991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Dan Bernstein writes:

>Three people---Dave Gudeman, Norman Graham, and I---seem to agree
>on a single definition of first-class.

I think I missed that definition. Would you completely spell it out
for me? Who's definition is it?

Thnx.

>All the other definitions disagree with each other on some particular.
>Must it be possible to return first-class objects from functions? Not if
>you believe Dybvig (as quoted by Dickey). Must it be possible to pass
>them as arguments? Not if you believe Clinger (as quoted by Ozan).

I don't think the ones quoted from scheme literature differ at all, and
the proof of the pudding is the language itself. On the other hand, your
confusion is understandable. The quoted authors do not attempt to supply a
pedantic enumeration of ``first-class-ness'', rather, they simply mention
that which is typically omitted from some [only some] other languages.
Neither Dybvig, nor Clinger imply what you presume they do. [take my word
for it, or you can contact them via e-mail ;-)] Incidentally, those
definitions were posted only to address your appearent disbelief in some
particulars of ``first-class functions''.

>I think the only statement we can all agree with is Lennart's claim that
>``first-class'' has several definitions.

I am not convinced that this is true.

oz
---
Yellow pages is evil. All traces of   | Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
it must be vanguished from the face.  | Uucp: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz
of the earth	   -- Eriks Rugelis   | Phone: 1+ (416) 736 5257 ..