From: Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality <ihatespam@...>
Date: 2006-08-02T08:15:05+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?


"Chad Perrin" <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote in message 
news:20060801195029.GF30216@apotheon.com...
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:40:05PM +0900, Just Another Victim of the 
> Ambient Morality wrote:
>>
>>     ...and this would be a problem if the definition of a closure is the
>> calling of a Proc object derived from a block.  Alas, that is _not_ the
>> definition of a closure...
>>     When we yield to the block, we are doing so in our method, which is
>> _not_ the same scope as the scope where the block was created.  Yet, the
>> block we're yielding to still has access to that other scope.  How? 
>> Because
>> it is a closure...
>
> We're back to the absurdly broad here:
>
> If any "thing" that has access to another scope is a closure, that makes
> every nested "thing" in a language with global and/or lexical scope a
> "closure".  That's a little like defining a "human" as "has four limbs".

    Again, there is context (in the English sense of the word) to what I 
said that.  In fact, it looks like you've narrowed into a specific part of 
the paragraph while ignoring other parts of that very same paragraph...  If 
we have access to a scope _from_another_scope,_ then we are a closure.  I do 
not think this is absurdly broad...
    "if" and "while" (code) blocks don't introduce a new scope, which 
explains why they have access to their environments...