4 ms·
That's a cool idea, but I wouldn't want to lose the scope as you would with a closure. I will look into seeing if it's possible, though.
by antihero 15y ago
That's a cool idea, but I wouldn't want to lose the scope as you would with a closure. I will look into seeing if it's possible, though.
- shepik 15y agoYep, but i you can call "loosing the scope" as "specifying data dependencies explicitly" :) It all depends on a use case, though.
- gordonslondon 15y agoThat not just a cool idea, that's essential to a cache system. What if you want store FALSE in your cache? You will get a miss everytime your cache key is accessed.