oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (02/08/91)
In article <12547:Feb621:05:4491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Daniel J. Bernstein writes some more: >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. This discussion has been about those certain language objects (in C) called ``functions'' from the very start. [1] Do you understand this? As for implementing C' or C+= or whatever that does not have the same restrictions on those objects (``functions'') as does C: I think that would be rather interesting. >As a matter of fact, it's not only possible, it's trivial. Just because you have a trivial solution to some problem does not mean it is the solution to the problem at hand, nor does it imply a correct solution to said problem is trivial. >The things that my implementation produced were not C functions, but >they were full-fledged functions in all respects. No, they were not C functions, therefore unlike other attempts, they were [and still are] irrelevant to the discussion. > ... the problem before was that some people didn't >like how I said ``C has first-class composable functions'' to mean >``first-class functions can be implemented in C.'' Actually, some people objected to the absurd re-definition of ``has'' to bring some legitimacy to your misunderstanding [1] of the topic, or to belabor the obvious. We have noted that by that amusing re-definition, C ``has'' Fortran. Furthermore, given that one can program an obnoxious conversationalist that misunderstands everything that does not match its limited and mis-initialized dictionary, we can also say C ``has'' Dan. oz