Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional Subject: Re: Is Lisp in class X? Message-ID: Date: 4 Jun 90 07:19:50 GMT References: <14810@dime.cs.umass.edu> <2632@skye.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 3 Jun 90 17:10:00 GMT Jeff Dalton says: I would not say Pop got it right, because (1) variables in Pop have dynamic scope and (2) closures have to have an explicit annotation listing the variables to close over [cf FUNCTION in Lisp 1.5]. I regard these as more significant defects. Older Pop didn't get it right, tis true. However, current versions of Pop11 (Aaron can supply dates - lest's just say for at least a couple of years) have had full lexical scoping - ie non-dynamic scope and implicit closures. I, too, would regard their absence as a significant defect. Conversely, I regard the explict presence of partial application ("consclosure") as a +ve feature. Regards, Kers.