This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
- From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013 at student dot uu dot se>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:34:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
- References: <20020315232620.84AA4F28C0@nile.gnat.com>
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 06:26:20PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> I see insufficient value in anonymous functions. It seems like minor
> syntactic sugar, that in fact does not fit into C very well,
> so it is more like syntactic vinegar :-)
If they are useful or not is mainly a matter of programming style.
Personally I like them, but then I am familiar with functional
languages where anonymous functions are an important part of the
language. (Program in List or ML for a while, and I think you will see
how they can be useful.)
I agree that they are not very "C-like" so it might be difficult to add
them in a sane manner.
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013@student.uu.se