I usually say “block” but I have nothing against a name change. I think “closure” would be an intention revealing name, I like it. And I’m willing to say “closure” from now on :)
On 17.04.2014, at 15:35, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.ber...@me.com> wrote: > Well… the whole community of programming language call a closure a closure. > Calling a block what is actually a closure may not be a well-marketed move in > my opinion. > > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Sastre <sebast...@flowingconcept.com> > wrote: > >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:08 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: >> >>> I would rather rename is to Block, as everyone is calling it a “block”. >> >> That might be actually a good idea >> >> sebastian >> >> o/ >> >> PS: thinking in that line there is also ‘Context’ as, conceptually, what >> these blocks of code want to do is to keep the evaluation in a specific >> context. But to ease know-how transference and type less I’d rather go with >> the most popular name, as you suggested: ‘Block' >> >> > >
