Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #2734Re: On whether C has first-class composable functions
From: Douglas E. Quale
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 1991 01:23
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 1991 01:23
19 lines
1369 bytes
1369 bytes
In article <3576:Jan2622:55:2991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>
>There were two other portable C implementations (by Kris, I believe);
>they allowed the usual C syntax for function calls, and because C
>functions are statically allocated, the compositions had to be
>statically allocated. Only one of those implementations had a fixed
>(``arbitrary'') limit.
I don't understand the last 2 sentences. They are mutually contradictory.
The functions are statically allocated, and this ISN'T an arbitrary limit?
Explanation, please.
[ An additional note: I suffered from some braindamage in the C prototype
I posted earlier. It should read
int (*compose)(int (*f)(int), int (*g)(int))
but you folks probably spotted that right off. ]
-- Doug Quale
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991Feb2.012304.2425@spool.cs.wisc.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!uwvax!picard.cs.wisc.edu!qualeReferences:
<305@smds.UUCP> <1991Jan26.132913.11358@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <3576:Jan2622:55:2991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!uwvax!picard.cs.wisc.edu!quale From: quale@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: On whether C has first-class composable functions Message-ID: <1991Feb2.012304.2425@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Date: 2 Feb 91 01:23:04 GMT References: <305@smds.UUCP> <1991Jan26.132913.11358@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <3576:Jan2622:55:2991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu (The News) Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 19