Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

(tye)Re2: A Real Closure

by tye (Cardinal)
on Jul 13, 2001 at 00:46 UTC ( #96182=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to A Real Closure
in thread Unusual Closure Behaviour

That is an interesting case BEGIN { my $x; sub foo { ... $x ... } }
Perl could decide to implement that as a closure (and probably does because "BEGIN" blocks are implemented as subroutines). But lets find out:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; use Devel::Peek qw(Dump); BEGIN { my $x; sub begin { ++$x; } } sub justmy { my $x; ++$x; } sub ifmy { my $x if 0; ++$x; } { my $x; sub static { ++$x; } } sub nest { my $x; sub inner { ++$x } } sub gen { my $x; return sub { ++$x }; } *insert= gen(); Dump $_ for( \&begin, \&justmy, \&ifmy, \&static, \&inner, gen(), \&insert + );
The "cleaned up" output is:
Variable "$x" will not stay shared at closure.pl line 27. begin: SV = RV(0x1a83a20) at 0x1a65068 SV = PVCV(0x1a8340c) at 0x1a62144 GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b6c0 "main" :: "begin" PADLIST = 0x1a7b690 1. 0x1a621b0 (FAKE "$x" 0-57) OUTSIDE = 0x1a620fc (UNIQUE) justmy: SV = RV(0x1a83a2c) at 0x1a65098 SV = PVCV(0x1a8345c) at 0x1a620f0 GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b72c "main" :: "justmy" PADLIST = 0x1a7b708 1. 0x1a7b714 ("$x" 59-60) OUTSIDE = 0x1a6f124 (MAIN) ifmy: SV = RV(0x1a83a30) at 0x1a650b0 SV = PVCV(0x1a7adbc) at 0x1a7b750 GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b798 "main" :: "ifmy" PADLIST = 0x1a7b774 1. 0x1a7b780 ("$x" 61-62) OUTSIDE = 0x1a6f124 (MAIN) static: SV = RV(0x1a839dc) at 0x1a650e0 SV = PVCV(0x1a7ada4) at 0x1a7b76c GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b7a8 "main" :: "static" PADLIST = 0x1a7b790 1. 0x1a620f0 (FAKE "$x" 0-64) OUTSIDE = 0x1a6f124 (MAIN) inner: SV = RV(0x1a83a34) at 0x1a650c8 SV = PVCV(0x1a7ae5c) at 0x1a7b81c GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b858 "main" :: "inner" PADLIST = 0x1a7b840 1. 0x1a7b7ec (FAKE "$x" 0-64) OUTSIDE = 0x1a7b7bc (nest) gen(): SV = RV(0x1a83a38) at 0x1a65158 SV = PVCV(0x1a7af9c) at 0x1a650e0 FLAGS = (ANON,CLONED) GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b924 "main" :: "__ANON__" PADLIST = 0x1a65128 1. 0x1a65080 (FAKE "$x" 0-67) OUTSIDE = 0x1a7b894 (gen) SV = PVCV(0x1a7aeac) at 0x1a7b894 GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b93c "main" :: "gen" PADLIST = 0x1a7b8b8 1. 0x1a65170 ("$x" 66-68) 2. 0x1a7b8e8 ("&" 1--1) OUTSIDE = 0x1a6f124 (MAIN) insert: SV = RV(0x1a83a3c) at 0x1a65188 SV = PVCV(0x1a7af4c) at 0x1a6f01c FLAGS = (ANON,CLONED) GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b924 "main" :: "__ANON__" FLAGS = 0x6 PADLIST = 0x1a6f0f4 1. 0x1a7b8c4 (FAKE "$x" 0-67) OUTSIDE = 0x1a7b894 (gen) SV = PVCV(0x1a7aeac) at 0x1a7b894 GVGV::GV = 0x1a7b93c "main" :: "gen" PADLIST = 0x1a7b8b8 1. 0x1a65170 ("$x" 66-68) 2. 0x1a7b8e8 ("&" 1--1) OUTSIDE = 0x1a6f124 (MAIN)
or just consider
begin: 1. 0x1a621b0 (FAKE "$x" 0-57) justmy: 1. 0x1a7b714 ("$x" 59-60) ifmy: 1. 0x1a7b780 ("$x" 61-62) static: 1. 0x1a620f0 (FAKE "$x" 0-64) inner: 1. 0x1a7b7ec (FAKE "$x" 0-64) gen(): 1. 0x1a65080 (FAKE "$x" 0-67) insert: 1. 0x1a7b8c4 (FAKE "$x" 0-67)
which seems to indicates that "justmy" and "ifmy" are not implemented as closures but all of the rest are implemented as closures. So I'll certainly be more lenient in what I let other people call closures. (:

But it also indicates that the padlist is carried around for ordinary subroutines, which makes that aspect of the implementation less important to me.

I think that the important thing about closures is being able to call the same code but have it use different variables (without passing them in as arguments). Above, only the anonymous subroutine and "insert" meet that criterion. So those are what I'll call closures. The other 3 cases I'll call "static variables that Perl implements via closures" if pushed. :)

        - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")


Comment on (tye)Re2: A Real Closure
Select or Download Code
Re: (tye)Re2: A Real Closure
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jul 13, 2001 at 01:41 UTC
    I think that the important thing about closures is being able to call the same code but have it use different variables (without passing them in as arguments). Above, only the anonymous subroutine and "insert" meet that criterion. So those are what I'll call closures.

    What do you mean by this? I think I'm missing something when it comes to closures...

      A "classic" example of closures goes something like this:

      sub generateSequencer { my( $start, $inc )= @_; $start -= $inc; return sub { return $start += $inc; }; } my $countByTwos= generateSequencer( 0, 2 ); print $countByTwos->(), $/ for 1..3; my $countByThrees= generateSequencer( 1, 3 ); print $countByTwos->(), " ", $countByThrees->(), $/ for 1..4;
      which generates the output:
      0 2 4 6 1 8 4 10 7 12 10

      So we have $countByTwos and $countByThrees are both references to the code: sub { return $start += $inc; };
      except that the code reference $countByTwos has hidden inside of it references to the $start and $inc that were created when generateSequencer was called the first time while $countByThrees has hidden inside of it references to the other $start and $inc (that were created when generateSequencer was called the second time).

      So both of those code references end up using the same code, but they each end up using different variables even though we don't pass any variables at all as arguments in here: print $countByTwos->(), " ", $countByThrees->(), $/

              - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
      Ok, I'll try (though see John M. Dlugosz's answer just above):
      > perl -lwe'sub k{my $x; sub j{++$x}; return sub{++$x} } k(); $a=\&j; k(); $b=\&j; $c=k(); $d=k(); print"a b c d"; $,=$"; print &$a, &$b, &$c, &$d for 0..2' Variable "$x" will not stay shared at -e line 1. a b c d 1 2 1 1 3 4 2 2 5 6 3 3 >
      That is a and b are just two references to the same function and its (compiled-in) variable. c and d refer to different functons (with the same code) each with its own (run-time declared) variable.

      c and d are closer to what is referred to elsewhere as closures. (Not everywhere else, the original usage in set theory is yet another thing.)

      update Obviously I didn't reload the page before submitting. I thought tye had left, so it would be safe to try to answer without being compared to his much more complete answers. I'll leave mine up anyway, in the hope that repetition aids understanding.

        p

Re: (tye)Re2: A Real Closure
by sauoq (Abbot) on Jun 03, 2003 at 19:33 UTC
    I think that the important thing about closures is being able to call the same code but have it use different variables (without passing them in as arguments).

    No. You are just confusing a useful use of closures for a definition of what they are.

    A closure is simply a function that refers to a free lexical variable. In the code { my $x=0; sub foo { $x } }
    foo() is a closure; it just isn't a very useful one. In Perl, named closures are good for simulating static variables, but not much else (that I can think of.)

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
    

      I've also used that behaviour to get less-global shared variables. I was working around an even uglier problem and this isn't the sort of thing I'd recommend for general usage but it is another useful usage.

      { my $x=0; sub foo { $x } sub bar { $x } }
      I think that the important thing about closures is being able to call the same code but have it use different variables (without passing them in as arguments).
      No. You are just confusing a useful use of closures for a definition of what they are.

      "No"? So I don't think that that is the important thing about closures? Then what do I think? I'd like to know. q-:

      Find me a web page that contains a definiton for "closure" in terms of generic computer programming (best if it is not specific to just one programming language). I've looked for such a couple of times before and again recently and I haven't found anything even close. [ I'm quite familiar with the term "closure" from set theory (mathematics) -- as well as from popular "psychology" and for zippered plastic, food-storage bags. (: ]

      I've heard several definitions of "closure" and been told that several of them were wrong (including the one that I based my assertion several layers further up in this thread upon). But I've never seen any kind of authoritative definition of the term.

      If your language either doesn't have lexical variables or it doesn't have nested subroutines, then it doesn't make sense to talk about closures in regard to that language. For example, Perl 4 doesn't have lexical variables.

      If your language doesn't have lexical variables outside of functions, then your definition makes sense. But based on your definition, C has closures:

      #include <stdio.h> // Can't use x here since isn't available in this scope. // Hence, x is lexically scoped. static int x; void closure() { return x; }
      But I think people would be shocked to hear that C has closures. *shrug* Perhaps some would counter this by saying "x isn't really a lexical variable". Whatever. I don't care to split hairs on either definition.

      So I could see defining closures as you have. I don't find that definition very satisfying.

      If you were really replying to my post from a couple of years ago (further up in this thread), then you should know that I don't assume the original definition of "closure" that I was given is correct anymore.

      However, I do still think that there are a lot of things the people call "closures" for which the term isn't very meaningful. Among these I include:

      • Perl CODE references that refer to a subroutine that doesn't use any lexical variables from outside of itself
      • Subroutines that use lexical variables from an outer non-subroutine scope

      And I do still think that the important thing about closures is that you can use them to hide different lexicals into seperate refences to the same subroutine. And with your definition, I can have closures without being able to do this (if I have a language that doesn't have nested subroutines or a language without code references/pointers, for example).

      If one is implementing a language, then one probably thinks about closures in different ways than I usually do. Certainly, some of the more interesting statements I've heard about what is a closure have come from people digging into the internals for Perl.

      So I don't really care what the definition of "closure" is (or even if there is even a solid consensus on what that is). I'm glad I know a lot more (than a couple of years ago) about how far apart different people seem to draw their lines in the sand between what is and what isn't a closure. Perhaps a lot of these people were just misinformed Perl hackers feeding off of each other (I certainly was for a while).

      Perhaps you'll feel better if you just think "Perl closure" when you see that I have written "closure" on PerlMonks.

      Best of all, maybe I'll get a link to some authoritative material on the term "closure" out of this. :)

                      - tye
          Find me a web page that contains a definiton for "closure" in terms of generic computer programming (best if it is not specific to just one programming language). I've looked for such a couple of times before and again recently and I haven't found anything even close.

        Did you try FOLDOC?

        I know I'm replying to an old node here, but the FOLDOC entry was put up in 1994.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://96182]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-09-18 17:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (120 votes), past polls