Re: Closures versus objects

>
> What do you mean by "module system"? Don't C++'s namespaces fit the
> bill?

You've called my bluff. :)

My point, though, is that the namespace control provided by objects
has a lot in common with the namespace control provided by
modules/namespaces.  The method dispatch mechanisms provided by
objects take namespace control one step further, which is often very
useful; in Ruby:

  s = "abcd"
  s.length
  a = [1, 2, 3]
  a.length

seems much more elegant to me than Scheme's

  (let ((s "abcd")
        (ls '(1 2 3)))
    (string-length s)
    (length ls))

Of course, Ruby is not as elegant as Scheme when dealing with
anonymous functions.  In Ruby,

  {|x| print x}("wrong")

does not work.  It has to be done in a more object-oriented manner:

  lambda {|x| print x}.call("correct")

- Spencer