On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:18:18 +0200, Philippa Cowderoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The thing is I think that for a language to have "first-class"
functions,
it must be "homoiconic" if I understand the terms correctly.
You're confusing functions with the terms that are used to define them.
The terms aren't first-class, the functions are. This is intentional: the
only way you can tell functions apart is if they give you different
results for the same parameter. Otherwise, what you have isn't a function
but a combination of a function and some extra structure.
I also confuse numbers with the terms that are used to define them (like
1.2)
I guess I have to study more about this.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
