Re: Closures versus objects

> >                                        For example, in Java, anonymous
> > inner classes can refer to bindings in the environment in which they
> > were created - as long as these bindings are declared final (i.e. they
> > are constant).
>
> No offense, but this Java 'feature' always makes me LOL.  If a
> binding is constant, is it really a binding?
>

That's the way it is in Haskell, too, since it lacks mutable state.
Of course, without first class functions, programming in a functional
style with Java is painful.  Trying to program in a *pure* functional
style in Java would be downright insane.