🚀 go-pugleaf

>  brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
>> quale@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale)

>> Functions cannot be dynamically allocated in C.
> You are making Jim Giles' mistake of confusing syntax and semantics.
> Just because the C standard calls certain language objects ``functions''
> doesn't mean that it's impossible to implement functions that don't have
> the same restrictions as those objects. As a matter of fact, it's not
> only possible, it's trivial.

As a newcomer to this discussion, I'm puzzled.  Let me see if
I understand the point Dan is making.  Is the point that one can
code in C dynamically allocated entities which can be invoked
or interpreted?  If so, is it fair to say that C also "has"

    1) garbage collection
    2) associative arrays
    3) generators
    4) inheritance (or hey, go all the way) multiple inheritance

in this sense?  If not, why not?  These seem to be much the same thing.

( To be honest, it seems much like Dan is answering the question
  "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?"
  with "four", while Douglas answers "five".  The disagreement
  in the case of the dog is what is meant by "calling" one
  object another.  The disagreement in the case of composable
  functions is what is meant by a language "having" a feature.

  Further, the principle of least astonishment in use of language would
  make me answer "five" to the question about the dog, and "no" to the
  question about C having dynamically allocatable functions, because
  most people take the "calling" to affect what the term "leg" in the
  question references, and most people take "to have" to mean something
  closer to "available as a language primitive" rather than "can be
  composed in the language". )

Wayne Throop       ...!mcnc!aurgate!throop