On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 06:50:09PM +0900, Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality wrote: > > This seriously sounds like an "if a tree falls in the forest, does it > make a sound?" kind of situation. In other words, it's a semantic > argument... Okay, let's translate that question into the terms we're actually discussing. 1. If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound? 2. If a lambda has the ability to access its context, but there isn't any context to access, is it still a closure? > > Personally, I would call them closures, if they have access to their > environments. > Perhaps we can agree to call a closure a block of code that has the > _ability_ to access variables of their enclosing scope, rather than strictly > requiring that they take advantage of this ability? Not yet. See above, re: blocks falling in a forest. I'm beginning to think the question of whether it's actually a closure really IS a question for a programming koan, after all. If so, I'm glad we've at least narrowed the discussion down to this point at last. It'd be pretty neat to be responsible for the creation of a new programming koan, anyway. I'm going to go add this to my sig rotation right now. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] This sig for rent: a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/