[Sharlin]

Passing function addresses as parameters is easy. It's more difficult to return a nested function that closes over the outer function's variables.

[Questron]

Not really in machine language or even BASIC (see below).

[int_19h]

Your BASIC example doesn't have any local variables to close over. It just references a global. That defeats the whole point of closures.

Passing or returning first-class functions aren't a problem. First-class closures (function pointer + state) are.

[Questron]

You can create closures in CBM BASIC V2 by referencing arrays or creating thunks as an extension. But that's beside the original point. Implementing is not a lot of work but since my mega-deriver already solves the problem (derivation) elegantly and efficiently (most likely more efficiently than the original m68k lisp program), I really don't see any reason to use closures here. Do you?