> Time to trot out the tired old koan [1] ... > > " The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to > prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that > objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at > his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's > closures." > > " Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, > intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The > Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small > Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and > looked forward to informing his master of his progress. > > " On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by > saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand > that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting > Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's > object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened. > > > [1] http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03277.html
I only wonder if the idea of explicit closures was floating in the air at the time when this koan was coined. Does anybody know? (because I can't loose the impression that explicit closures could be the rich man's objects) M.
