[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
**Subject**: **Re: Lambdas**
**From**: Muh Muhten <muh.muhten@...>
**Date**: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 18:45:32 -0500

On 11/18/18, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> As well the given examples are not pure lambda:
>
> \x,y,z(x+(x-2)*g(x,y,z-2*(x+y))-y*z)
> or its transformation into
> function(x,y,z) return x+(x-2)*g(x,y,z-2*(x+y))-y*z end
>
> is bound in a closure referencing "g", which is not an upvalue (an input
> parameter) of that function.
This is the first I've heard of a notion of a "pure" lambda which
forbids closures.
It would seem to be a rather *unusual* idea, since the name "lambda"
itself refers to lambda calculus, which is not nearly as interesting
without closed-over variables.