In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>In any case, I think it is high time that we free ourselves of an
>imperative view of arrays and functions, and the differences between
>the two.
>
You are right that too much of an imperative view *is* taken of
functional programming. M
> From: Paul Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>And finally, it makes sense to have separate syntax for arrays
>>and general functions, because different behavior is expected
>>for the two.
> That argument would suggest that you should use a different
> syntax for each different implem
date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 15:58:43 CST
from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Sailor)
>Arrays and general functions are isomorphic, certainly in theory.
>In practice, however, they are different and the differences
>are significant.
>And finally, it makes sense to have separate syntax
My humble opinion about arrays and general functions...
Arrays and general functions are isomorphic, certainly in theory.
In practice, however, they are different and the differences
are significant.
In general, although the set theoretic definition of a function
is a set of ordered pairs, it is
My humble opinion about arrays and general functions...
Arrays and general functions are isomorphic, certainly in theory.
In practice, however, they are different and the differences
are significant.
In general, although the set theoretic definition of a function
is a set of ordered pairs, it is
I like David Barton's idea of distinguishing between the
array representation of functions and the more familiar
computational representation at the declaration level
but not at the reference level. With this appraoch
references to arrays and references to functions would
look the same in express
