On 18 February 2013 20:57, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > I will agree that your original statement was valid in the context of > the terminology used to describe a language like Haskell. However, > for Haskell to address the challenge being discussed at > http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Guides/Lexical%20Closure ...........
My statement has nothing to do with: – the challenge that you mention, – Haskell, – how Haskell addresses that or other challenges, or – any other specific language. My statement is concerned solely with closures and nothing else. It refutes the validity of a position expressed on the web page, viz. 'Lexical closure is incompatible with the functional programming model'. That is a general position on closures, clearly unrelated to specific languages or challenges. It is mistaken and the purpose of my original post was to point this out. > I think I would have > just pointed out that you were assuming a Haskell-like context for the > discussion, and left it at that. Please do not assume what I am assuming. And I am not assuming Haskell-like context any more than I am assuming the context of ML, JavaScript, Lisp, Scheme, Lua, Ruby, D, C++, or any other of the numerous languages that feature closures. It is actually you who keeps talking of Haskell, time and again, without any need or relevance to the discussion – if it is a discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
