gbacon@hiwaay.net (Greg Bacon) writes:
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> : Greg Bacon writes:
> :
> : > How does C<sub { 3 }> or C<sub { my($x) = @_; $x + 7 }> reach into
> : > the outer lexical scope? Calling either of these representatives a
> : > closure dilutes the term to the point of meaninglessness.
> :
> : I don't quite understand why you're hellbent on misunderstanding my
> : statement but I don't think that repeating it for a third time makes
> : any sense.
>
> I understand your statement just fine. You argued Steele’s
> definition of closure is inapplicable to Perl because an outer
> lexical environment exists at the point of creation.

This is a fact, there's generally no point in arguing about facts and
I certainly didn't try to.

> This misses the forest for the trees. There is no *semantic*
> difference between a function defined in a null lexical environment
> and a function defined in a non-null but unreachable lexical
> environment.

Further, despite your apparent desire for some kind of opponent,
beyond paraphrasing Steele's definition and coming to the conclusion
that it cannot be applied to Perl, I didn't post anything about *my*
opinion on this topic and actually, I don't even have an opinion about
it, at least not a clear-cut one. So, please feel free to argue (this
time really) about the relative merits of your definition of 'closure'
vs 'the definition someone else used' but please stop targetting me in
lieu of 'the guy with the other opinion' just because I'm coniently
located bystander.