>> In article <1994Oct8.040610.22152@chemabs.uucp>,
>> Larry W. Virden <lvirden@cas.org> wrote:
>> in Tcl itself. Some folks have commented on the lack of Lamda functions,
>> yet there have been several Tcl code implementations of this type
>> of function.
Robert> Lambda functions aren't worth nearly as much if you can't get full
Robert> closures. Did those extensions allow you to create functions closed
Robert> over a set of bindings?
No, you can't get closures. You can fake them to some limited degree
by substituting at lambda-creation time.
I've written 3 different versions of "lambda" for Tcl. They all suck.
I don't use any of them. The rundown:
* One implementation never "gc"d the anonymous functions it created.
This is horrible.
* One implementation subjects you to quoting hell, because you need to
pass names that look like [Lambda ...]
* One implementation has real performance problems, because it creates
a new proc and then deletes it every time a lambda is evalled.
I would say that you can't really do anonymous functions in Tcl. I
generally just use lots of small throwaway functions instead.
Tom
-- tromey@cns.caltech.edu Member, League for Programming Freedom "Sadism and farce are always inexplicably linked" -- Alexander Theroux