Re: Reference and First-Class Function

>   I don't think so.  What is proposed is to return a new first-class
>  function to provide references.  Not to curry an existing one.

And this is called overspecification. 

It is not at all necessary to use higher order functions in order to implement references.

Anyone could propose to implement HOF via extensions (and it is up to them to defend such a proposal given the fact that HOF have been implemented *without* extensions long ago), but it is incorrect to present HOF as a precondition for the capability to implement references.

A good specification should leave significant freedom to the implementor and not bind them to a particular implementation.
 
Cheers,
Dimitre