Talk:First-class object

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overheard:

> While you can't create new functions and unbound methods in C++ at
> runtime,
> you can take their address and pass that around as a first class
> object. 

True, though that usually devolves into a semantic issue about whether
functions are first-class if you can only manipulate pointers to them. 
I usually say C has first-class functions if you squint.  C++ doesn't
have first-class bound member function pointers, as you point out, and
another obvious example in C++ is the lack of first-class classes -- a
feature in Python that is extremely powerful, since it almost makes the
"factory" pattern automatic in Python (the class object itself is just a
callable type that creates instances).

[link]

Not being a programmer, I am not sure what to make of this in regards to the statement in the article relating to C not having first class functions... --Lenehey 22:59, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think this just means -- as far as C goes -- that while the functions themselves aren't first-class, you can usefully refer to them with objects that are first-class, which means that you get most of the "first-class-ness" except the creatability. C++ still doesn't allow the creation of new functions, but with templating and/or operator overloading, it's possible to create new objects that both syntactically and semantically act like closures of existing functions at runtime and thus get a bit closer to "real" first-class functions. I'll rewrite the statement to say something about this. --Tardis 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, C++ does not support closures, which I find an important tool. Not sure if that is a requirement to first-class functions or not. --Spoon! 02:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it is, or is it aint?

The article basically defines a first-class object as an entity which can be used in programs without restriction (when compared to other kinds of objects in the same language), in the context of a particular programming language.

And then gives this a a list of possible usages for a first-class object:

1. being expressible as an anonymous literal value
2. being storable in variables
3. being storable in data structures
4. having an intrinsic identity (independent of any given name)
5. being comparable for equality with other entities
6. being passable as a parameter to a procedure/function
7. being returnable as the result of a procedure/function
8. being constructable at runtime

Now isn't this too loose? I've got some problems or at least questions about at least two of these;

1 - It's not clear to me that being able to construct an object with a literal is a pre-requisite. I'm taking literal here in the common sense that there is a syntax which the compiler understands to construct an instance/data value at compile time. This really excludes way too many objects, I think.

5 - I'm not sure what this means. Maybe if we mean identity comparison, but to my mind equality usually has to do with some kind of 'state' equivalence, and not all first-class objects are so comparable.

Is there a reference to the source of this list? or did it just come about here?

Since it's often a topic of dispute whether or not a programming language supports certain constructs as first-class, I'm troubled that this definition seems to make things so language dependent. Since, C doesn't allow functions to be constructed at run-time, BUT the definition is language dependent, we might as well say that functions in C are first class. But are they? --Rick 14:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)