|
From: | Phil Sainty |
Subject: | Re: Naming FCRs |
Date: | Wed, 29 Dec 2021 14:02:00 +1300 |
User-agent: | Orcon Webmail |
On 2021-12-29 07:35, Jim Porter wrote:
For me at least, the benefit of "function object" is that it's already the established name for something like this in the C++ world[1]. When I think of a function object, I think (in C++) of a class/struct that holds some data but exists primarily to be used as a function (typically by passing it to a metafunction). However, for non-C++ programmers, I can see how it would give the wrong connotation.
Yes, in a lisp context I think it would just be confusing? Functions are already (lisp) objects. The specific object type may vary from function to function, but if someone said "function object" to me I wouldn't think they meant anything more than one of the existing types of object that a function can be.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |