Re^6: Is it possible to create a sub exclusive to a sub? (nasty memory leak)

&get_and_inc_foo is a closure, because it binds a lexical variable defined outside of it.

If my example is a closure, then aren't all subroutines closures over the file-scoped lexicals in the file they're defined in?

If they don't use any lexicals defined outside them, they're not closures. sub foo { 1 } isn't a closure no matter where it's defined.

    my $foo;

    sub closure { $foo }
    sub not_closure { 1 }
[download]

What I mean with making the subroutine a lexical anonymous subroutine is the following.

    my $foo;                 # lexical
    $foo = sub { $foo->() }; # closure

    local $bar;              # dynamical
    $bar = sub { $bar->() }; # not a closure
[download]

ihb

Read argumentation in its context!

Comment on Re^6: Is it possible to create a sub exclusive to a sub? (nasty memory leak) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Is it possible to create a sub exclusive to a sub? (nasty memory leak) by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 19, 2004 at 18:30 UTC
So, if I had something like: `package main; my $foo = 1; sub foobar { $foo++; }` [download] Does that make foobar() a closure? ------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Then there are Damian modules.... sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon.* - flyingmoose I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested	[reply] [d/l]
Re^8: Is it possible to create a sub exclusive to a sub? (nasty memory leak) by ihb (Deacon) on Sep 19, 2004 at 21:27 UTC
Yes. `ihb` Read argumentation in its context!	[reply] [d/l]