Real closures

J J azreal1977 at
Sat Oct 7 16:04:15 UTC 2006

Sorry for not being clear.  By "real" I mean downward *and* upward usable 
closures.  I.e. no "fixTemps".

Now I have seen some people say something like "well we aparently don't need 
them".  But that is always a dangerous path.  C thought they didn't need 
automatic memory management.  BASIC thought they didn't need recursion.  
Paul Graham thinks he has never needed Object orientation.

>From: "Klaus D. Witzel" <klaus.witzel at>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at>
>To: squeak-dev at
>Subject: Re: Real closures
>Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:53:44 +0200
>Hi J J,
>the "real" about closures depends on whom you ask and where you ask. For  
>an example see
>On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:21:04 +0200, J J wrote:
>>From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr
>>>Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:10 PM
>>>A more radical change to the Squeak VM was Anthony Hannan's VI4 work,
>>>which gave us better performance and real closures. But though his new
>>>bytecodes were cleaner, my impression is that he felt the gain wasn't
>>>enough to justify losing the historical connection to the "blue book"
>>So what happened with this?  I have seen several references in this list  
>>(this is the first one I found) of someone making a good closure  
>>implimentation and it getting rejected.  Why are they getting rejected?   
>>I think real completel closures are a requirement for any modern  
>>language.  Even Java and C++ (!!!) will have then within a few years.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list