From: Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>
Date: 2006-08-01T11:39:29+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?

Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> Am I to assume that some_local_variable is going out of scope outside of
> the lambda declaration at some point, to create that closure?
> 
> 
> 
>>    All things that are called "blocks" in Ruby are closures.
>>    Do you still have any questions on the matter?
> 
> 
> Yes.  Are you just failing to explain how these things are closures, or
> do you not know what a closure is?  You keep telling me blocks are
> closures somehow, but you're not explaining how.  Saying it doesn't make
> it so.  Please explain what I'm missing.
> 

I'm unfamiliar with your assertion that the context has to go
out of scope before a closure exists.

Not trying to argue, just stating my perception.

Maybe you can point us to a formal definition somewhere.

I would have said that a closure *will* retain its variables
*if/when* they go out of scope.

Bad analogy: We might loosely define a car as "a machine that
goes places," but it's still a car even when it sits still.

My impression is that you're applying the definition too
rigidly.

Again, I'm not certain I'm right. No flames, no insults.


Hal