Re: I thought this was the one that worked?

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:39:29AM +0900, Hal Fulton wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:

Am I to assume that some_local_variable is going out of scope outside of
the lambda declaration at some point, to create that closure?

All things that are called "blocks" in Ruby are closures.
Do you still have any questions on the matter?

Yes. Are you just failing to explain how these things are closures, or
do you not know what a closure is? You keep telling me blocks are
closures somehow, but you're not explaining how. Saying it doesn't make
it so. Please explain what I'm missing.

I'm unfamiliar with your assertion that the context has to go
out of scope before a closure exists.

Not trying to argue, just stating my perception.

Maybe you can point us to a formal definition somewhere.

How's this?:

A "closure" is an expression (typically a function) that can have
free variables together with an environment that binds those
variables (that "closes" the expression).

I found it on this page:

I also found this:

I would have said that a closure *will* retain its variables
*if/when* they go out of scope.

Bad analogy: We might loosely define a car as "a machine that
goes places," but it's still a car even when it sits still.

My understanding is that the vehicle is a car, and the use of it is a
drive (to the country, or whatever). Similarly, a block of code that
can be passed around like a first-class member is a block, or lambda, or
whatever you want to call it today: if you pass it to a function as an
argument, it's a callback, and if you lexically close it, it's a

My impression is that you're applying the definition too

I suppose that's possible, but I really don't think so. Do you have a
formal definition of a closure that specifically contradicts my

CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ ]
"A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall