--- Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that a *true* anonymous function is needed, but also
> think it
> would be nice if one could selectively "pull down" elements
> of closure
> somehow.

v1.9 already has the ability to do the opposite which kind of
allows you to get the same effect.  You can explicitly tell it
what variables are local to the block by putting them after the
arguments and a ";".  Matz described it on a previous thread or
maybe it was this one when it was "default block params".

If Matz optimizes out all of the unused variables out of the
closure (he mentioned doing it after "eval" becomes a keyword)
and you use the above ;-specified local variables, maybe you
don't need non-closure blocks/lambdas.  But, I kind of still
wish we had a syntax where the variables in a block/lambda were
local (non-closure) by default.



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com