Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!gt-news!cc.gatech.edu!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!tina.mrco.carleton.ca!knight
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk Blocks
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: tina.mrco.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <knight.823219215@tina.mrco.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: The Object People
References: <310EDADC.2E40@ccm.jf.intel.com> <4ep1il$55d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 00:00:15 GMT
Lines: 24

In <4ep1il$55d@newsbf02.news.aol.com> davidsutra@aol.com (DavidSutra) writes:

>>>So the difference is whether or not a block's arguments result in fresh
>bindings, as in Church's Lambda Calculus (and Scheme and CommonLisp).<<

>All right. I see your point.

>>>Doing so is arguably more useful and intuitive.<<

>I think not. Ripping ivars out of a Block is more or less turning the
>object upside down. Fine on a transcript, really lousy in practical work.
>Leave the ivars where they belong, in the object. If you give me a

I agree with Patrick, except I would remove the word "arguably". Real
closures are much more useful. I believe that all of the Smalltalks
now have real closures, as specified by the forthcoming standard.


-- 
 Alan Knight                | The Object People
 knight@acm.org             | Smalltalk and OO Training and Consulting
 alan@objectpeople.on.ca    | 509-885 Meadowlands Dr.
 +1 613 225 8812            | Ottawa, Canada, K2C 3N2

