Note also that there are related (linguistic) issues associated with concepts like "number" and "equality" - english (like all "natural languages") is contextual and we deal with this issue so often that we usually do not pay any attention to it.
That said, we do have informal ways of referring to this class of issue. Example casual references include: "apples and oranges", "technical", "sleazy", and of course "contextual". -- Raul On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> wrote: > More useful to assign a special meaning to "function", I think. Then you > can include things like ?, file reads, comparisons (which depend on > tolerance), etc. > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Devon McCormick <[email protected]>wrote: > >> One functional language definition of "function" that I've seen is along >> the lines of "a function always returns the same result for the same input" >> which apparently excludes anything like "?" in J unless we assign a special >> meaning to "same". >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Boyko Bantchev <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > On 15 February 2013 18:01, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> It seems we differ on the definition of a mathematical "function". >> > > >> > > I wonder how you came to this conclusion, since 'mathematical >> > > functions' were not discussed. >> > >> > It came about because I have been involved in conversations about >> > functional programming languages for a couple decades, now, and in my >> > experience this phrase "functional programming" is a reference to the >> > use of mathematical functions to reason about and develop programs. >> > And, that the longer phrase: "functional programming language," refers >> > to a language designed to favor this approach (using mathematical >> > functions to reason about and develop programs). >> > >> > In Haskell, for example, the IO Monad is used to capture the idea that >> > when using input (or output), "state" can be represented as an >> > argument for the relevant functions. It does not have to be baked into >> > the definition of the function, and is separable from the function >> > itself. >> > >> > > Apart from that, your statement: >> > > >> > >> Here, you have introduced a definition of "function" which conflicts >> > >> with the usual meaning of the word when people talk about functional >> > >> programming. >> > > >> > > is incorrect, because most functional languages admit stateful >> > > functions, and, consequently, 'when people talk about functional >> > > programming', stateful functions are not excluded. >> > >> > Here, the distinction is that the state is not a part of the function >> > - it is a parameter which is supplied to the function. >> > >> > > But most importantly, the appropriateness of your linguistic exercise >> > > still evades me. That continuing exercise is irrelevant to my >> > > argumented observation that considering closures 'incompatible with >> > > the functional programming model' is incorrect. >> > >> > Yes... it's typically the case that if people cannot agree on the >> > meanings of words then the exchange of sentences using those words >> > does not carry useful meaning. >> > >> > That said, I do recognize that sometimes people use a word ("function" >> > in this case) to refer to a keyword in a programming language (for >> > example, javascript has a "function" keyword). However, that departs >> > from [my understanding of] the usual meaning of "functional" in the >> > phrase "functional programming language". >> > >> > If "functional programming language" meant only that the language had >> > a keyword which was spelled with those letters in that order it would >> > not be an interesting topic. >> > >> > And, of course, this last example could easily be "not what you >> > meant". But, since you have never told me what you do mean I am left >> > without any useful approach for understanding the concepts you are >> > referring to. I would like it if, at some point, you supplied some >> > definitions for the meanings of some of the words you use where I have >> > expressed that I think the relevant definition is different. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > -- >> > Raul >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Devon McCormick, CFA >> ^me^ at acm. >> org is my >> preferred e-mail >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
