Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>: > Me: > > > except that the thunk would have to have write access to > > the namespace it's embedded in, perhaps implemented by > > sharing the stack frame. > > If the idea is for it to be a macro feature then yes. But it could be > JUST an anonymous implicit thunk. Isn't that how it is in Ruby or > Smalltalk? The idea was to mimic both the syntax and semantics of built-in control structures as closely as possible. If the body were a normal 2.2-style nested scope, the semantics would be different. Most other languages that allow passing of closures don't have this problem, because their closures do have write access to outer scopes. > How would the procedure know what variable names to expect in the > block? Not sure what problem you're seeing here. The body would be compiled as an integral part of the procedure scope it's embedded in, just like the body of any built-in control structure. Names assigned to in the body would become local variables of the procedure. Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4