As was mentioned earlier, a closure can as well be a named sub, not
necessarily an anonymous.
Ilya
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Johnson
To: Dave Mitchell
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08/21/2001 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: explicitly declare closures???
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:06:06PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > {
> > > my $x = "bar";
> > > sub foo {
> > > # $x # <- uncommenting this line changes the outcome
> > > return sub {$x};
> > > }
> > > }
> > > print foo()->();
> >
> > Well, I would expect it to output 'foo' on both occasions, and I'm
> > more than a little surprised to discover that it doesn't. Looks like
a
> > bug to me.
>
> Using the notation $outer:x, $foo:x and $anon:x to refer to whatever
> $x might be in the 3 scopes:
>
> With the $x:
>
> foo() is a closure created at compile time.
Actually, foo() is not a closure. A closure is an anonymous subroutine
and foo() clearly has a name.
Now, if you were proposing that named subroutines should behave like
closures in this regard, which is what Piers and probably most others
were expecting, I suspect that you would probably get broad agreement.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net
