I do wish people wouldn't say "beg the question" https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging-the-question-fallacy/ when they mean "invites" or "raises" the question. Sigh.
Yes, Smalltalk is just like Lua here. |f g| "declare f and g as local variables" f := [... g value ...]. "f uses g's current value" g := [... f value ...]. "g uses f's current value" You cannot mix declarations and statements in Smalltalk. Local variables have to be declared before use. On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 11:31, Brainstorms <wild.id...@gmail.com> wrote: > Richard, > > Question from someone still fairly new to Smalltalk: > > To implement the example you gave regarding mutually recursive functions in > Lua, one must write something like this: > > local f, g > > function g () > <do something> > f() > <do something> > end > > function f () > <do something> > g() > <do something> > end > > where the initial declaration of f & g as locals defines an f such that g > will see it (as a local, albeit containing nil) when g is defined. The > following definition of f doesn't require this, of course. And g doesn't > care what f contains -- until execution time. > > Both Lua and Smalltalk implement full lexical closures, so it begs the > question: Do the blocks defined in your example have this same issue? What > is 'g' in the block assigned to f? > > Is it required that 'g' be lexically defined prior to referencing it in a > block closure, or does Smalltalk have a mechanism to resolve this at > execution time? > > Thanks, > -Ted > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > >
