11:58p:
Perhaps in your mind. In C, functions are defined by ANSI/ISO/IEC
9899, and before that by K&R.
And in the rest of the programming and mathematical world, they are
defined by Alonzo Church. I think that takes precedent over any flavor-of-
the-month standard.
C functions posses the properties that the C standard defines.
But C functions are not functions. You cannot call bicycles `Bavarian
Copying Machines' because they cannot be considered any subset of the
class of copying machines, proper or improper.
You are free to use whatever terminology you like. Unfortunately that
makes you irrelevant here.
Again, the Humpty Dumpty logic strikes back. Words have meaning beyond
what you say, and they have context beyond what the Standard defines. If
the Standard's definition is at variance with the rest of the world, the
Standard is wrong.
After all, (1==0) must always evaluate to false. Even if a future Standard
allows it to evaluate to true, even if a future Standard requires it
evaluate to true.
Apparently you don't know better. A C function is a function because
the C standard defines it as such.
Humpty Dumpty logic, Humpty Dumpty language.
Whether or not it meets your idea,
Not my idea. The mathematical idea, and the idea followed by other
programming languages.
derived from other languages or any other sources, of what a function
should be, is immaterial.
Hardly immaterial. If we cannot agree on proper terminology, we might as
well abandon all pretense of rational communication.
Functions were defined long before C was, and they will survive long after
C is relegated to the dustbin of history.
Unless a document with such definitions is
referenced as normative in the C standard, it is meaningless in this
context.
This context is a subset of a larger mathematical context, one in which
functions have a precise definition the Standard is innocent of.
Therefore, there exists a variance, or a logical inconsistency. In all
cases of such a variance, something is correct and something is incorrect.
As the notion of a Standard upending nearly a century of mathematical
thought is absurd, the Standard must be incorrect.