Talk:Function composition (computer science)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia, and this was the first article that I had authored. It was previously included in the composition (computer science) article but was split off into its own page.

It bears the message that it needs fact checking. Most of my questions were answered by following the link titled Cite your references, so I will do so, making sure no "original research" is introduced, but:

Could anyone finding doubtful material put some mark (an asterisk perhaps) beside the doubtful claim so that I can substantiate/remove the claim?

Thanks, Vonkje 03:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly a typo

"In a fuctional programming language, such as Haskell, function composition can be expressed in a naturally."

That particular sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. I assume it should be "function composition can be expressed naturally", but I'm not sure that this is actually the intended meaning. Perhaps someone with more of a clue could correct it?

[edit] proposed deletion of Composition_%28computer_science%29

I think you might have author the Composition_(computer_science) page, and just wanted you to know that I have proposed it for deletion. I changed the previous links to it either to point to Object_composition or Function_composition_(computer_science). Since these terms are very different, I didn't think they need a disambiguation page. I appreciate your contributions. I've explained why I want to delete it in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues in the article's Talk page. If you remove the deletion request, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.