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: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: ertr1013 at student dot uu dot se, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:30:49 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
<<The main convenience IMO of anonyomous functions is that one does not
need to come up with a new name every time one needs a function that is
only to be used once. This can also be achieved if one has nested
functions since then one can reuse the same name if necessary but one
can use pretty much the same arguments for and against nested functions
as for anonymous functions.
>>
Sorry, I don't understand the last sentence, we have nested functions
now. So what are you arguing for, you seem to say that if you have
nested functions then it is not so important to have anonymous
functions. If that is not what you are saying please clarify.