Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #2007
| From | Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine |
| Date | 2018-03-14 14:49 +0000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <18-03-066@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <18-03-049@comp.compilers> <CANOtCLVc1Rxp4SRSwD+dLXRUSpxY4igGstfcuxxLj-ydekGsjQ@mail.gmail.com> <18-03-055@comp.compilers> <18-03-060@comp.compilers> <18-03-064@comp.compilers> |
On 2018-03-14, Kartik Agaram <ak@akkartik.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> wrote:
>> Anonymous functions without environments are basically just
>> function pointers.
>>
>> If those are first class functions, then C has first class functions.
>
> C doesn't have anonymous functions (ignoring a combination of GNU
> extensions added sometime after 1988). But you mentioned anonymous
> functions, so you must be aware of this. So I'm not sure what you're
> saying.
That's just a syntactic restriction on where functions are
placed in the program text, due to the lack of a function literal
syntax.
If functions don't require an environment, you can easily add anonymous
function literals with a textual preprocessor like GNU m4, by
implementing a completely trivial "no-environment lambda lifting".
Syntax like:
some_fun(LAMBDA{int (int a, int b){ return a + b; }})
is simply replaced by
some_fun(f_0013);
accompanied by the insertion of
static int f_0013(int arg){ return arg + 1; })
into the global scope. This is easy enough that it's usually not a major
inconvenience to simply do it by hand. If the C preprocessor were
slightly more powerful, it could handle the above.
Once we obtain a function as a function pointer by evaluating its
name, then it has been anonymized. We can pass it around the program,
store it in variables and structures and so on. It has the same power
as a lambda-with-no-env.
--
TXR Programming Lanuage: http://nongnu.org/txr
Music DIY Mailing List: http://www.kylheku.com/diy
ADA MP-1 Mailing List: http://www.kylheku.com/mp1
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-03-12 16:17 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-03-13 03:02 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-03-19 11:04 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2018-03-19 12:50 -0700
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-03-20 16:16 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-03-23 10:44 +0000
Re: algorithm performance, was Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2018-03-23 18:47 +0000
Re: algorithm performance, was Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2018-03-24 14:06 +0000
Re: algorithm performance, was Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2018-03-25 07:02 +0000
Re: algorithm performance "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2018-03-27 01:22 +1100
Re: sorting performance, Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine w.clodius@icloud.com (William Clodius) - 2018-03-24 23:25 -0600
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2018-03-20 09:06 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2018-03-20 12:49 +0000
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-03-27 14:46 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2018-03-30 14:20 +0000
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-04-06 16:09 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk> - 2018-04-08 14:21 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2018-04-09 16:51 -0400
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2018-04-10 05:48 +0000
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2018-04-10 14:32 -0400
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2018-04-12 01:09 +0200
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-12 11:51 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-12 19:40 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-04-13 14:10 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60 "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2018-04-14 14:11 +1000
RE: language design after Algol 60 "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> - 2018-04-16 12:56 +0000
Re: language design after Algol 60 "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2018-04-17 19:08 +1000
Re: Language design after Algol 60 "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2018-04-18 14:58 +1000
Re: language design after Algol 60 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2018-04-18 16:12 -0700
Re: language design after Algol 60 Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2018-05-01 10:42 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60 "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2018-04-14 14:19 +1000
Re: language design after Algol 60 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-14 20:43 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60 Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2018-04-15 00:04 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2018-04-12 14:05 +0000
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2018-04-12 20:51 -0400
Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-04-13 03:22 +0000
Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2018-04-13 10:22 +0200
Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2018-04-14 13:40 -0400
Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2018-04-15 00:12 +0200
Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2018-04-15 00:23 +0200
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk> - 2018-04-10 13:15 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2018-04-11 13:27 +0200
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support "Derek M. Jones" <derek@_NOSPAM_knosof.co.uk> - 2018-04-11 20:06 +0100
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-04-10 18:32 +0000
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2018-04-12 20:57 -0400
Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-04-13 03:28 +0000
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2018-05-05 13:50 +0200
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2018-03-20 15:27 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine w.clodius@icloud.com (William Clodius) - 2018-03-12 21:09 -0600
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Kartik Agaram <ak@akkartik.com> - 2018-03-13 13:27 -0700
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-03-14 00:07 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Kartik Agaram <ak@akkartik.com> - 2018-03-13 22:31 -0700
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-03-14 14:49 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Kaz Kylheku <157-073-9834@kylheku.com> - 2018-03-13 20:51 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2018-03-14 00:27 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2018-03-14 16:37 +0000
Re: Add nested-function support in a language the based on a stack-machine anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2018-03-14 15:16 +0000
csiph-web