From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2006-08-01T16:44:38+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:21:01PM +0900, Logan Capaldo wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:47:50PM +0900, Logan Capaldo wrote:
> >>
> >>In ruby this environment always exists for a block regardless of the
> >>presence of free variables, since the declaration of the variables
> >>that are free in the block can be added after (in time) the creation
> >>of the closure.
> >
> >I think that depends on what you mean by "creation of the closure" in
> >this case.  Are you talking about the code used to create it, or the
> >assignment of the return value of the closure's enclosing scope to a
> >variable?
> >
> 
> I'm talking about what happens inside the ruby interpreter when it  
> sees that code. As far as ruby is concerned, it doesn't know how to  
> make a block that isn't a "closure". The same code path gets followed  
> whether ruby sees
> 
> def foo
>  a = 1
>  lambda { ... a ... }
> end
> 
> or
> 
> def foo
>   lambda { ... }
> end
> 
> All the "closure bookkeeping" is done whenever you create a block. No  
> extra bookkeeping is done whether or not you take advantage of the  
> fact that you have a "closure".

Arrrrrrgh.  We're talking past one another.  I can see where at least
some of the disconnect is occurring, but I don't seem to be able to get
across to you what you're not saying so that you'll explain it.

I give up for now.  I'll just see if I can learn what's actually going
on with blocks and closures in Ruby from some other source.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990