5 ms·

I already find that hard enough - I've found that people tend to conflate first-class functions with closures.

by harto 17y ago

mjs 17y ago
Well, is there any real different between a first-class function and a closure that closes over nothing? Is it possible for a language to support closures without first-class functions? How common is it to have first-class functions without closures? (I think Python sort of had this arrangement, but I think this is fixed now.)
- andreyf 17y ago
  A closure is just a (function, bindings) pair, so Python certainly has closures. The problem with Python is that there is no syntax for assigning to variables declared in an arbitrary scope, because there are no explicit declarations. As far as I understand, implicit local variables are what causes the problems in Python, not anything about closures, really. This causes other problems, too, such as those PG described here [1], under the heading "Implicit local variables conflict with macros". 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/arclessons.html http://www.paulgraham.com/arclessons.html
  - mjs 17y ago
    Interesting. Thanks.
  - micheles 17y ago
    Python 3 has read-write closures. Check out the nonlocal declaration.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      The nonlocal statement causes the listed identifiers to refer to previously bound variables in the nearest enclosing scope. [1] While certainly a big improvement, we still can't access variables in arbitrary scopes, just local, nearest non-local, and global. To me, this seems a significantly more complex way of specifying variable scope than just declaring it explicitly. 1. http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/simple_stmts.html#the-nonlocal-statement http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/simple_stmts.html#t...
- blasdel 17y ago
  Haskell does not semantically have closures at all, because functions have only their arguments -- no scope to close over. Lexically, there's where clauses to scope function definitions, but that gets desugared very early, and is really not the same thing at all anyway (the name binding is completely static).
  - distortion 17y ago
    Of course Haskell has closures, there's always a scope to close over: f x = (\y -> x + y)
    - blasdel 17y ago
      That's still just high-level lexical sugar - the 'scope' is not captured, just rewritten. After desugaring, there is no scope left, even lexically. It's completely different from a 'closure' in a language that has variables.

I already find that hard enough - I've found that people tend to conflate first-class functions with closures.

by harto 17y ago

I already find that hard enough - I've found that people tend to conflate first-class functions with closures.

mjs 17y ago

Well, is there any real different between a first-class function and a closure that closes over nothing? Is it possible for a language to support closures without first-class functions? How common is it to have first-class functions without closures? (I think Python sort of had this arrangement, but I think this is fixed now.)

andreyf 17y ago
A closure is just a (function, bindings) pair, so Python certainly has closures. The problem with Python is that there is no syntax for assigning to variables declared in an arbitrary scope, because there are no explicit declarations. As far as I understand, implicit local variables are what causes the problems in Python, not anything about closures, really. This causes other problems, too, such as those PG described here [1], under the heading "Implicit local variables conflict with macros". 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/arclessons.html http://www.paulgraham.com/arclessons.html
- mjs 17y ago
  Interesting. Thanks.
- micheles 17y ago
  Python 3 has read-write closures. Check out the nonlocal declaration.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    The nonlocal statement causes the listed identifiers to refer to previously bound variables in the nearest enclosing scope. [1] While certainly a big improvement, we still can't access variables in arbitrary scopes, just local, nearest non-local, and global. To me, this seems a significantly more complex way of specifying variable scope than just declaring it explicitly. 1. http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/simple_stmts.html#the-nonlocal-statement http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/reference/simple_stmts.html#t...
blasdel 17y ago
Haskell does not semantically have closures at all, because functions have only their arguments -- no scope to close over. Lexically, there's where clauses to scope function definitions, but that gets desugared very early, and is really not the same thing at all anyway (the name binding is completely static).
- distortion 17y ago
  Of course Haskell has closures, there's always a scope to close over: f x = (\y -> x + y)
  - blasdel 17y ago
    That's still just high-level lexical sugar - the 'scope' is not captured, just rewritten. After desugaring, there is no scope left, even lexically. It's completely different from a 'closure' in a language that has variables.