On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Cristian Baboi 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. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "My religion says so" explains your beliefs. But it doesn't explain why I should hold them as well, let alone be restricted by them. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
