From: Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@...>
Date: 2006-08-03T00:48:32+09:00
Subject: Re: I thought this was the one that worked?

On 8/1/06, Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
<ihatespam@rogers.com> wrote:
> "Jacob Fugal" <lukfugl@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:507567670608011307pb9f6642j538e2142092f88ff@mail.gmail.com...
> > On 8/1/06, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 01:28:45AM +0900, Jacob Fugal wrote:
> >> > You seem set in the belief that a closure is around a specific
> >> > variable or group of variables. If those variables don't exist, then
> >> > the closure must not exist. Unfortunately the current definition on
> >> > Wikipedia (which I consider useful, but not authoritative) reflects
> >> > that type of thinking.
> >>
> >> The current definition on Wikipedia is scattered, vague, and without
> >> salient points on this matter.  I've read through the thing from end to
> >> end, and the article spends an awful lot of time failing to concretely
> >> define a closure.
> >
> > On that, we can agree. :)
>
>     If you two agree then... why don't you improve it?  It's a wiki, after
> all...

The truth? Because I'd already spent to much energy and time in this
thread, I didn't have any left to spend on the wikipedia entry.
Especially since before trying to make any sort of edit based on a
belief that my understanding was more correct I'd want to do a lot
more research in authoritative sources to back up my claims.

I hope that I can find the impetus and time to do it in the near
future, however.

Jacob Fugal