[jcampbell1]

> In the logical sense each function has its own closure. There is no way functions should affect the variables closed on by each other. So you shouldn't expect this.

What? The whole point of a closure is that it is shared.

[Dylan16807]

The point of closures is to share variables, but each closure can participate in different shares.

[bmm6o]

Part of the reason people are misunderstanding you is that terminology got abused a little bit upthread.

"I just always assumed that all the variables present in a closure are maintained" should really be (something like) "I just always assumed that all the variables present in a scope that produced a closure are maintained". You're right that a closure only needs to contain the variables that are closed over, and that some of those variables are scoped such that they can appear in multiple closures.

[DanWaterworth]

> You're right that a closure only needs to contain the variables that are closed over.

You would think so, but this assumption fails in the presence of eval.

[bmm6o]

Sure, but that's the only exception, right? If there's no eval call in the function that requires the closure it's easily determined what variables don't need to be included, right?