All I said is that the semantics differ from LISP's in Perl, since subroutine names (and in fact, named subroutines as a whole) aren't lexicaly scoped, with no assertion on whether it is possible to fully emulate it using anonymous subs. If you look back at my previous post you'll see this:
I don't see much of a point to using named subsubroutines [in Perl] - unless you want to pass it around as a reference, in which case you didn't do anything less than you would have had to with an anonymous sub.
It was just nitpicking - nay, less even, I just agreed with runrig's nitpickery. If you look back, you'll see I wasn't even arguing, I inquired about his point then agreed after explanation.
In reply to Re^8: Why are closures cool?
by Aristotle
in thread Why are closures cool?
by mr.dunstan
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |