From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2006-08-02T08:14:55+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?

On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:05:02AM +0900, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
> >Here's yet another:
> >
> > A subroutine doesn't have to be an anonymous subroutine to be a
> > closure.  If a named subroutine accesses lexical variables and those
> > variables go out of scope, the named subroutine retains a reference to
> > the lexicals, just as you saw with anonymous subroutines.
> >
> >There are four distinct sections of Chapter 6: Subroutine References
> >that deal specifically with closures -- thus the wealth of quotes on the
> >subject.
> 
> not very much info on dynamic scoping though - the main focus is on lexical
> scoping.

That's because it's about closures, which are not closures due to
anything involving dynamic scope.  They're closures due to something
involving a closed lexical scope.

There's another subthread that looks a lot more promising for clarifying
whether idiomatic Ruby "blocks" are necessarily closures than this is
proving to be, so I'm afraid I've only skimmed your email.  I can
multitask pretty well, but trying to follow all the subthreads that
arise when thirty people all jump in to try to "prove" that all blocks
are closures via a variety of approaches that, for the most part, don't
seem to prove any such thing, is producing more tasks than I can
simultaneously manage very well (when combined with the actual
money-making stuff I need to do).  I apologize for my lack of attention
to the details of your email at this time.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The measure on a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley