Andre Pang wrote:
> Sure, that's the mathematical definition of a function, but it's
> certainly not the typical definition of a function in programming
> circles.
Well I did go on to sepcify the difference between pure and
impure functions :-).
> (I'm not arguing that functions with side-ef
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Hi Mark,
Mark Sargent wrote:
Hi All,
last night we touched on methods(functions equivalent for other languages?)
Sorry, but no, functions are not really equivalent to methods.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function
"A subroutine which has n
On 21/06/2006, at 3:07 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Sorry, but no, functions are not really equivalent to methods.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function
"A subroutine which has no side-effects; see functional
programming."
Sure, that's the mathematical definition of a func
Hi Mark,
Mark Sargent wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> last night we touched on methods(functions equivalent for other languages?)
Sorry, but no, functions are not really equivalent to methods.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function
"A subroutine which has no side-effects; see functional pro
Mark Sargent wrote:
Hi All,
last night we touched on methods(functions equivalent for other
languages?) and I wanted to just see what ri had for it, but, got the
following,
--- Class: SingletonClassMethods
(no description...)
-
Hi All,last night we touched on methods(functions equivalent for other languages?) and I wanted to just see what ri had for it, but, got the following,--- Class: SingletonClassMethods
(no description...)---
