I agree. I would love to see lexical scope and closures, for example.
Regards,
Elias
On 28 Jul 2014 01:49, "Blake McBride" <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Juergen,
>
> As I play with lambdas, I see many, many anomalies (like passing them, the
> difference between execution and passing, re-assignments, etc.). I
> remember you saying that you weren't intending to go down that rabbit hole.
> They sever a useful function as they are. I respect your view. Perhaps
> way down the road lambdas can be re-visited. There is a lot of potential
> power there.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Blake
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Juergen Sauermann <
> juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Blake,
>>
>> that probably works more by chance than on purpose.
>>
>> /// Jürgen
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/27/2014 06:56 PM, Blake McBride wrote:
>>
>> ∇test;fun1;fun2
>> [1] fun1←{1+⍵}
>> [2] fun1 22
>> [3] fun2←fun1
>> [4] fun2 44
>> [5] ∇
>> test
>> 23
>> 45
>>
>>
>>
>
