Re: Programmer defined arrays

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 06.08.12 21:54, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:05:39 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> why
>> do some ask for more programmer control over the translation process
>> for arrays, via array becoming a type suitable for O-O, but function
>> not becoming an O-O type?
>
> Of course they do. But there is the rub - when function is a value of some
> type then operations of that type are functions of different kind. There is
> a potentially infinite hierarchy of such functions. So if you wanted first
> class functions you would need some second class functions to operate them.
> you would also have to take care about keeping types statically checkable
> (static typing). But if you wanted first class arrays there would be
> nothing special about them.
>

More simply, (ceterum censeo Qi wouldn't need static typing, at the
risk of non-terminating translation), I had thought of it the other
way around.
I'll need something below arrays to make true arrays from below-array
things, or, addresses, TBH, silencing the fact that these establish
arrays of indexed storage cells.
Similarly, I had thought the analog would be to ask for lower things
for operations, too, like procedures that have multiple entry points
to serve as bodies for a host of functions. Just for the sake of
an example. Compact, efficient, simple, no inlining considerations.