Re: Redefining locals

["Dr. Rich Artym" <rartym@...>]

Quoting myself, always a bad sign ... :-)

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 05:06:19PM +0000, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:

> One can certainly define some sort of partial closure as in this case,
> and it definitely has programming uses.  But it's not full closure. :-)

I was trying to be accomodating here, but actually the diplomatic attempt
was misguided, because the concept of "partial closure" makes no sense at
all in respect of closures, any more than being "partly pregnant".

By definition a closure has no remaining free variables, so closing all
of them but one still hasn't accomplished closure.  We might like to
think of a part-completed job of closing off free variables as perhaps
accomplishing a portion of a larger overall task, that's true, but
closure isn't accomplished until the final free variable disappears.

An open function with 5 free variables, 4 of which have been closed off,
is no different to an open function with 1 single unclosed free variable,
from the point of view of closure.  Suggesting that the first one is in
some sense more closed because it has "partial closure" despite both of
them having the same number of free variables is not very logical.

So, I have to take the suggestion of "partial" back. :-)

Rich Artym.
-- 
Existing media are so disconnected from reality that our policy debates
spin around a fantasy world in which the future looks far too much like
the past.   http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/MITtecRvwSmlWrld/article.html