Re: Me no understand scoping

["Maciek Godek" <pstrychuj@gmail.com>]

> Time to trot out the tired old koan [1] ...
>
> "  The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to
> prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that
> objects are a very good thing - is this true?"  Qc Na looked pityingly at
> his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's
> closures."
>
> "  Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell,
> intent on studying closures.  He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The
> Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small
> Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system.  He learned much, and
> looked forward to informing his master of his progress.
>
> "  On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by
> saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand
> that objects are truly a poor man's closures."  Qc Na responded by hitting
> Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's
> object."  At that moment, Anton became enlightened.
>
>
> [1] http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03277.html

I only wonder if the idea of explicit closures was floating in the air at the
time when this koan was coined. Does anybody know?
(because I can't loose the impression that explicit closures
could be the rich man's objects)

M.