🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7HY9P4G@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com 
(Peter da Silva) writes:

   In article <MARKF.91Mar6122504@montreux.ai.mit.edu> 
markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu writes:
   > In article <R_V9_AC@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com 
(Peter da Silva) writes:
   >    In fact, I don't see how a language that isn't interpreted nor object
   >    oriented could be said to have first class functions.

   > Although it is true that most LISP (and Scheme) and purely functional
   > language implementations have interpretors available, there is no
   > dependency relation between that fact and the fact that they have
   > first class functions.  Nor are most of those languages "object
   > oriented".

   I suspect that if you remove the explicit interpreter and examined the
   remaining language, I will still be able to point to a part of the
   language and say "that's the interpreter!".

Why would you say that?

   That will be the part that takes a closure and executes it. In
   Forth terms, Lisp has an outer and an inner interpreter.

Could you explain those terms.

   You might object that this is a Bernsteinian definition of "interpreter",
   but I think it is a distinguishing point between languages that have first
   class functions and those that don't.

Maybe after I understand what you are saying I will object :-)

-Mark
--

Mark Friedman
MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
545 Technology Sq.
Cambridge, Ma. 02139

markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu