This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

RE: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals

From: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>
To: sd70030 at lanet dot lv
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:30:47 -0500
Subject: RE: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
References: <616BE6A276E3714788D2AC35C40CD18D561605@whale.softwire.co.uk><Pine.A41.4.05.10203151024100.6678-100000@ieva06>

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul V Andreev <sd70030@lanet.lv> writes:
 Paul> Names are only needed for shared functions! Unnamed function
 Paul> could became an idiom denoting "a helper function used only
 Paul> once".

Names also make code more readable.

Unnamed functions exist in one language I know of (Lisp).  Admittedly
I don't have much experience in that language, but from modest
exposure to Elisp I have the impression that they are very rarely
used.

A rarely used feature in an esoteric language doesn't sound to me like
something crying out to be added to C...

	  paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
  - From: Kris Warkentin
- Re: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
  - From: Bo Thorsen
- RE: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
  - From: Paul V. Andreev

References:
- RE: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
  - From: Rupert Wood
- RE: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
  - From: Paul V. Andreev

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]