On 20 February 2013 19:51, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > But if I take those as definitions for "closure" I am unable to > distinguish between "closure" and simple substitution.
There sure is a difference between substitutions and closures. Indeed, there is hardly anything in common between them. But why you are unable to distinguish between them is not my concern. >> Typical? Which discussions? And if the 'definitions' are not mutable, >> is it not a closure? What is it called then? > Well, for example, the last class I took. If that is true, you should only hope to attend other classes with more knowledgeable teachers. But I have serious reasons to doubt your words. > But I think the wikipedia > definition of closure also is reasonably close to the typical case. Yes it is, only 'the typical case' is not what you present it to be, as can easily be checked by reading that article. Amazing how you keep telling untruths, despite it being very easy to prove you wrong. When I do, you just move to telling another untruth. I don't know what kind of honesty this is. >> I would not dare disputing Descartes, but it seems to me that >> considering dynamic binding, on the one hand, and source text >> manipulation and recompiling, on the other, to be 'similar' tools >> for effecting a program's behaviour (which you did) is definitely >> a lack of common sense. > > They are similar in the sense that both can impose context. Sheer nonsense. You are refusing to make a difference between how programs (and languages) work and merely writing those programs. > But why should we be expected to make special accommodations for cases > which cannot be distinguished? Your question is out of place. What the programmer will not (and need not) be able to tell is how a closure is implemented. But one can surely tell if there is a closure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
