Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luke Palmer wrote: > > OO is orthogonal to functional. Erlang is pure functional, Lisp is > > a bastard child... > > > > 2. I'm curios as to how you can have a functional OO language. The > two seem fundamentally incompatible: > By writing an object that takes a parameter in its constructor (eg. Int) and has a member of type () -> Int, you have a closure, which is a let binding. Then you most likely have expression nesting, and you're done.
You can, of course, also take a C struct and call the whole thing a chunk or whatever, but that's beside the point. In Java, you have inner classes, which make writing in a functional style verbose and ugly, but quite straight-forward. Heck, you can even use reflection to only allow non-sideeffect stuff. Any sufficiently restricted subset of any high-level assembler is an awkward implementation of your favourite declarative language. -- (c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this signature prohibited. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
