Thank you both, that was quick..
LOL, I’m so new I used Grok to explain al203cr’s snippet.
I’m probably way off, but here goes.
So, captured_fun is an anonymous function that simply returns x, currently is 1.
Next statement rebinds x to 2.
Calling captured_fun prints 1 because when it was created it x was 1.
So it sounds as though the function is not actually using the variable as a variable is non-FP would expect, but more like when the function was created/instanced(?), the value of x was copied into the function.
If after the last statement you were to simply print x though, it would print 2, right?
If true, then this seems like when you define a function is pretty important.
What if my program were actually naively written similar to that, and I needed x to return 2?
Do I need to have to think about when I am defining functions, or is this my imperative experience mismatching with FP?
I read somewhere IIRC that this is done in part for safety/data corruption as with numerous processes this reduces the chance for one process to change a variable while another is working on it.
That makes sense if true, however if a variable is changing it would seem difficult to know whether or not your function will be accessing the actual current value.
Appreciate anyone willing to waste their time enlightening me.
because rebinding and immutability are not actually related.
