From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2006-08-02T08:20:13+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?

On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 08:15:05AM +0900, Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality wrote:
> 
> "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...

Define "from another scope", then.  The program as a whole is a scope,
after all -- "another scope", when you're in some other scope contained
within the program's scope.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The ability to quote is a serviceable
substitute for wit." - W. Somerset Maugham