On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 01:21, Brainstorms <wild.id...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
You mean like this...
In System Browser...
Object subclass: #A
instanceVariableNames: ''
classVariableNames: ''
package: 'AA'
A >> block
|a|
^ [ a := (a ifNil: [ 0 ]) + 1 ]
In Playground...
b := A new block inspect.
{ b value. b value. b value . b } "==> an Array( 1 2 3 [ a := (a
ifNil: [ 0 ]) + 1 ] )"
cheers -ben
