On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:40:05PM +0900, Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality wrote:
> 
>     ...and this would be a problem if the definition of a closure is the 
> calling of a Proc object derived from a block.  Alas, that is _not_ the 
> definition of a closure...
>     When we yield to the block, we are doing so in our method, which is 
> _not_ the same scope as the scope where the block was created.  Yet, the 
> block we're yielding to still has access to that other scope.  How?  Because 
> it is a closure...

We're back to the absurdly broad here:

If any "thing" that has access to another scope is a closure, that makes
every nested "thing" in a language with global and/or lexical scope a
"closure".  That's a little like defining a "human" as "has four limbs".

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid