Author: larry Date: Sat Jul 12 10:50:57 2008 New Revision: 14562 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Log: [S04] small clarification to whether named subs are really closures Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod ============================================================================== --- doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod (original) +++ doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod Sat Jul 12 10:50:57 2008 @@ -12,9 +12,9 @@ Maintainer: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 19 Aug 2004 - Last Modified: 2 Apr 2008 + Last Modified: 12 July 2008 Number: 4 - Version: 65 + Version: 66 This document summarizes Apocalypse 4, which covers the block and statement syntax of Perl. @@ -1268,7 +1268,12 @@ When we say "clone", we mean the way the system takes a snapshot of the routine's lexical scope and binds it to the current instance of the routine so that if you ever use the current reference to the routine, it gets -the current snapshot of its world, lexically speaking. +the current snapshot of its world, lexically speaking. (When we say that +named subroutines do not consider themselves closures, this is a bit of a +fib, since we must, in fact, take a reference to the subroutine in order to +store it into the symbol table! But this operation happens at compile time +so the lexical scopes in view are just the initial prototype lexical scopes +visible to the compiler.) Some closures produce C<Code> objects at compile time that cannot be cloned, because they're not attached to any runtime code that can
