Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I think I understand why there is a danger in allowing closures in a language using dynamic scope. That is, it seems you will be able to close the variable OK, but when trying to read it you will only get the value at the top of global stack. This might be dangerous if other functions use same name in the interim.
Have I missed some other subtlety?
Yes, that’s the basic problem. The term “closure” is short for “lexical closure”, though, which by definition captures its lexical scope. I’d call the things in a dynamically scoped language something else, like
LAMBDA. Lambdas are perfectly safe in a dynamically scoped language as long as you don’t try to return them.(For an interesting thought experiment, compare the problem of returning a dynamically scoped lambda in Emacs Lisp to the problem of returning a reference to a stack-allocated variable in C, and how both are impossible in Scheme.)
A long time ago, back when languages with dynamic scope were much less rare than today, this was known as the funargs problem. The problem you mention is the upward funargs problem.