I beg your pardon.. and thank you for being the first to draw my attention to the fact that the phrase (a common enough American colloquialism) is actually a logical fallacy. Until now, it's been strictly idiomatic to me.
And thank you for your prompt reply. Am I safe to assume that blocks in Smalltalk, as with Lua, capture their locally-scoped variables (referred to in Lua as "non-local variables") for correct evaluation in other contexts, such as when blocks are passed as arguments and return values? I.e., cases where the local variables of a method have gone out of scope and no longer exist, yet are referenced within the block at some future time when evaluated. I expect so; I just haven't seen it described in this detail. -t -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
