Re: wheels within wheels

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/30/2015 12:05 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sep 29,  9:15pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> }
> } Each command is past when it's past so that must mean that the address
> } of first foo ... is there ... yes of course there is, the thing is in
> } memory ... just aborts when second foo comes along.
>
> No, the outer foo will happily keep executing until it returns, at
> which point it is garbage-collected.  The old body has merely been
> disconnected from the name.
That's better.  It's not 'abandoned' it just becomes nameless.  Else 
we'd have
orphan lines of code and that's not sanitary.