Re: Why are closures cool, continued?

Ok how about this: true or false (the author of the very first example in this thread and I were talking thru what constitutes this) ...

"A closure is different from an anonymous subroutine in that (instead of having private variables) it -saves- the variables passed into it in its scope!"

This seems like a reasonable enough and perfectly clear statement, but to be honest anytime I think something is reasonable and clear, that's when I'm about to start being REALLY wrong! :)

-mr.dunstan

Comment on Re: Why are closures cool, continued?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Why are closures cool, continued? by perrin (Chancellor) on Jan 19, 2002 at 06:36 UTC
Closure and anonymous sub -- two totally different things! An anonymous sub is a ref to a sub without a name. A closure is any sub (named or not) that refers to lexical variables defined outside of its scope.	[reply]
Re:x3 Why are closures cool, continued? by grinder (Bishop) on Jan 19, 2002 at 18:27 UTC
Nearly. An anonymous sub is a sub without a name that can only be accessed via a reference (to that sub). -- `g r i n d e r print@_{sort keys %_},$/if%_=split//,'= & *a?b:e\f/h^h!j+n,o@o;r$s-t%t#u';`	[reply]

g r i n d e r print@_{sort keys %_},$/if%_=split//,'= & *a?b:e\f/h^h!j+n,o@o;r$s-t%t#u';

`g r i n d e r print@_{sort keys %_},$/if%_=split//,'= & *a?b:e\f/h^h!j+n,o@o;r$s-t%t#u';`