Larry's already said (from memory) that the distinction between ops and
subs should be minimized or eliminated.
That, together with the desire to keep parrot fairly language netural,
leads naturally to having 'heavy' ops actually be be subs.
Tim.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 06:02:44PM -0400, Uri Gu
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
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 10:34:49AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, foo() is not a closure. A closure is an anonymous subroutine
> > and foo() clearly has a name.
>
> Damain's definition of a closure includes named subs:
>
> "In Perl, a closure
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()->();
> >
> > W
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > I think closures are a lot harder (or at least subtler) than people
> > think,
>
> It's hard for me to agree with you, because I've never had *any*
> problems with closures. (And yes, I use them all the time.)
> The scenario you g
Dave Mitchell wrote:
> I think closures are a lot harder (or at least subtler) than people
> think,
It's hard for me to agree with you, because I've never had *any*
problems with closures. (And yes, I use them all the time.)
The scenario you gave seems rather far-fetched to me, in terms
of real-
> "Dave" == Dave Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, foo() is not a closure. A closure is an anonymous subroutine
>> and foo() clearly has a name.
Dave> Damain's definition of a closure includes named subs:
Dave> "In Perl, a closu
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try changing your original example from
>
> sub foo {
>
> to
>
> *foo = sub {
>
> and you'll see that everything works "as expected".
add a BEGIN so that instantion happens at the same time that a named
sub would be:
BEGIN { * foo = sub { } }
> I guess you missed where I suggested that putting "my" on that
> declaration is also counter-sensical, not to mention redundant.
> "my" implies a brand-spanking-new lexical variable attached
> to this very scope. The semantics of "outer" (or "closed"...)
> can be defined to imply a lexical var
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, foo() is not a closure. A closure is an anonymous subroutine
> and foo() clearly has a name.
Damain's definition of a closure includes named subs:
"In Perl, a closure is just a subroutine that refers to one or more lexical
variables declared o
10 matches
Mail list logo
