First-class function

In computer science, a programming language is said to have first-class functions if it treats functions as first-class citizens. This means the language supports passing functions as arguments to other functions, returning them as the values from other functions, and assigning them to variables or storing them in data structures. Some programming language theorists require support for anonymous functions (function literals) as well. In languages with first-class functions, the names of functions do not have any special status; they are treated like ordinary variables with a function type. The term was coined by Christopher Strachey in the context of 'functions as first-class citizens' in the mid-1960s.Explicit partial application possible with std::bind. In computer science, a programming language is said to have first-class functions if it treats functions as first-class citizens. This means the language supports passing functions as arguments to other functions, returning them as the values from other functions, and assigning them to variables or storing them in data structures. Some programming language theorists require support for anonymous functions (function literals) as well. In languages with first-class functions, the names of functions do not have any special status; they are treated like ordinary variables with a function type. The term was coined by Christopher Strachey in the context of 'functions as first-class citizens' in the mid-1960s. First-class functions are a necessity for the functional programming style, in which the use of higher-order functions is a standard practice. A simple example of a higher-ordered function is the map function, which takes, as its arguments, a function and a list, and returns the list formed by applying the function to each member of the list. For a language to support map, it must support passing a function as an argument. There are certain implementation difficulties in passing functions as arguments or returning them as results, especially in the presence of non-local variables introduced in nested and anonymous functions. Historically, these were termed the funarg problems, the name coming from 'function argument'. In early imperative languages these problems were avoided by either not supporting functions as result types (e.g. ALGOL 60, Pascal) or omitting nested functions and thus non-local variables (e.g. C). The early functional language Lisp took the approach of dynamic scoping, where non-local variables refer to the closest definition of that variable at the point where the function is executed, instead of where it was defined. Proper support for lexically scoped first-class functions was introduced in Scheme and requires handling references to functions as closures instead of bare function pointers, which in turn makes garbage collection a necessity. In this section we compare how particular programming idioms are handled in a functional language with first-class functions (Haskell) compared to an imperative language where functions are second-class citizens (C). In languages where functions are first-class citizens, functions can be passed as arguments to other functions in the same way as other values (a function taking another function as argument is called a higher-order function). In the language Haskell: Languages where functions are not first-class often still allow one to write higher-order functions through the use of features such as function pointers or delegates. In the language C: When comparing the two samples, one should note that there are a number of differences between the two approaches that are not directly related to the support of first-class functions. The Haskell sample operates on lists, while the C sample operates on arrays. Both are the most natural compound data structures in the respective languages and making the C sample operate on linked lists would have made it unnecessarily complex. This also accounts for the fact that the C function needs an additional parameter (giving the size of the array.) The C function updates the array in-place, returning no value, whereas in Haskell data structures are persistent (a new list is returned while the old is left intact.) The Haskell sample uses recursion to traverse the list, while the C sample uses iteration. Again, this is the most natural way to express this function in both languages, but the Haskell sample could easily have been expressed in terms of a fold and the C sample in terms of recursion. Finally, the Haskell function has a polymorphic type, as this is not supported by C we have fixed all type variables to the type constant int.