On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Lukasz Stafiniak <lukst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wow, I didn't know about that! Still, it is not clear to me it is a > good thing to capture "var" variables in the closure. It goes against > the semantics of normal nested functions. It's a "dirty but flexible" > solution -- it makes it easy to define several closures out of a > single definition (kind of like using partial application), e.g. when > the anonymous function is inside a loop. Java doesn't have it > (closures can only refer to "final" variables, "final"="val"="let").
I'm sorry, I got confused -- the closure in Pascal does not capture the value of the variable (i.e. does not form a copy of the variable), rather, the variable becomes heap-allocated (implicitly a field of some class), and anonymous functions together with the function that contains them share the variable. Making a copy would be an interesting design choice... (although violating the semantics of nested procedures.) http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6tp3i/pascal_gets_closures_before_java_why_hasnt_the/ _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
