On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Robert Klemme wrote:

> 2008/10/13 David A. Black <dblack / rubypal.com>:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
>>> IMHO it makes sense to not refer to Procs as "procedures" because they
>>> actually are _closures_.  This is a significant difference.
>>
>> Doesn't that vary by language though? I assume Proc/proc stands for
>> "procedure", so it's hard to rule that out as something to call them.
>
> Well, probably you are right although I do not know a language where
> procedures are closures.

Aren't they in Lisp? I don't mean that the terms are interchangeable,
but are there procedures in Lisp that are not closures on the bindings
in effect when they're created? (I think there are in Scheme.)

> OTOH you can say "proc" != "procedure".

What else would it mean though?

> Anyway, I just wanted to point out that a Proc is more than a simple
> procedure that accepts parameters works on them and probably returns
> something.

That's the "There's more" part of my original post :-) Closures, and
also method objects, which I didn't mention, were the two things I had
chiefly in mind.


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   Intro to Ruby on Rails  January 12-15   Fort Lauderdale, FL
   Advancing with Rails    January 19-22   Fort Lauderdale, FL *
   * Co-taught with Patrick Ewing!
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!