The term `closure` is confused throughout the text.
elfsternberg opened this issue · 2 comments
Throughout the text, the word closure is used in many cases, including the demonstration highlighted in issue 43, even when there is no closure. In the example (which mirrors the example in the text), no free variables (variables outside the function itself, variables that are part of the enclosing lexical scope) are being referenced, so no closure is necessary. The correct term here is not “closure,” it is “anonymous function,” sometimes called a “lambda”. It is only a closure if it in some way captures (encloses) values from the surrounding context.
Consider the following demonstration, in which the anonymous function described in Issue 43 is replaced with a named function:
fn stringify(i: &u64) -> String {
format!("{}", i)
}
fn main() {
let x = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
// let z = x.iter().map(|&x| format!("{}", x)).collect::<Vec<String>>();
let z = x.iter().map(stringify).collect::<Vec<String>>();
println!("{:?}", z);
}
The functionality is unchanged. Since this function is small, used only once, and not pub, I would expect the compiler to in-line it. Examining the produced assembly language shows that that is the case; the assembly from both the anonymous and named versions is exactly the same. There is no performance loss at all by naming the function.
Don’t take this as too strong a criticism! I absolutely want to commend you on this work! Something this clear and concise has long been needed, and I think you’ve hit a powerful sweet spot between helping newcomers and giving good reminders to experienced old-timers. I want the work to be better, and this, the typing and naming of functions that can be passed to other functions, higher-order programming, was one of the hardest things for me to understand, and I don’t want anyone else to go through that kind of confusion.
@elfsternberg Thanks for this and no, I don't mind at all! It makes me better and the book better.
Fortunately I think I should be able to explain this in easy English since closure is related to close, enclose, inclusion and all the rest. "It's a closure when it takes the variable and closes it in", something like that.
I'm now debating something like this disclaimer the Rust Book has where they also chose to use a single overarching term:
Note: For simplicity’s sake, we’ll refer to many of the problems as concurrent rather than being more precise by saying concurrent and/or parallel. If this book were about concurrency and/or parallelism, we’d be more specific. For this chapter, please mentally substitute concurrent and/or parallel whenever we use concurrent.`
That would allow for the clarification while not overburdening the English L2 reader of the text. "To keep things simple, whenever you see || it will be called a closure. However, ...(explain the difference as you wrote above in multiple short sentences)..."
Will probably also mention that you'll hear people saying things like "I'd like this to contain a closure" when it might mean either one.