Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21c15f4bc62a151

Jump to content

Talk:SAC programming language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 15 years ago by 201.35.78.190 in topic Functional

Duplication (or disambiguation)?

[edit]

Are these the same?

.... although the homepage links are different:

So if they are different, it might be an idea to put Disambiguation links in.

129.67.18.125 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Functional

[edit]

This article duplicates the statement (from the website) that SaC is a functional language while strictly speaking it is not. The major issue is that SaC allows the use of variables which is clearly a form of state while according to the "definition" of functional languages here on wikipedia is the first golden rule for a functional language. It might be a good idea to make it clear that SaC can convert its syntax into a functional description but the description itself is not strictly functional (although perhaps applicative). Addendum: SaC does not have a notion of global state but only local state, this is indeed like a functional language, although the use of c-like 'variables' is more of the 'syntactic sugar'. Cyberwizzard (talk)

  • Since it does not have closures (which I assume is what is meant by "higher-order functions [...] are not (yet) supported by SAC" (which I believe is incorrect, since even plain C supports higher-order functions, in the form of function pointers)), I think it doesn't really qualify as functional. 201.35.78.190 (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply