Re: Naming FCRs

[Phil Sainty]

On 2021-12-29 07:35, Jim Porter wrote:
> For me at least, the benefit of "function object" is that it's
> already the established name for something like this in the C++
> world[1]. When I think of a function object, I think (in C++)
> of a class/struct that holds some data but exists primarily to
> be used as a function (typically by passing it to a
> metafunction).
>
> However, for non-C++ programmers, I can see how it would give
> the wrong connotation.

Yes, in a lisp context I think it would just be confusing?
Functions are already (lisp) objects.  The specific object type
may vary from function to function, but if someone said "function
object" to me I wouldn't think they meant anything more than one
of the existing types of object that a function can be.