> >Anthony Hannan's send performance work was rejected even though it
> >did speed up sends and came with proper block closures. Proper block
> >closures are something we really should have.
> >
> 
> Why was this rejected?


I don't know about the send performance, but the closures rewrite in
general got stalled because nobody ever updated the debugger.  The
update was not completely trivial: the new closures sometimes miss
information about their surrounding scope.


Anyway, I'm sure the code is available online if someone wants to try
to finish this last missing piece.  Indeed, real closures would be
nice to have; these language feature should be what it looks like.

(Although, it's pretty impressive how little anyone cares in practice;
whenever you have complicated nesting, it's usually nicer anyway to
make explicit classes....)


-Lex