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, functionliterals

From: Russ Allbery <rra at stanford dot edu>
To: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken at qnx dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:58:33 -0800
Subject: Re: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, functionliterals
Organization: The Eyrie
References: <20020315160916.06CD9F28C9@nile.gnat.com><150901c1cc4a$a46ae680$b6010c0a@catdog>

Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> writes:
> From: "Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com>

>> Puzzlement ... in GNU C, you can perfectly well pass the address of a
>> local function. Now if you are saying you want full closures so that there

> No, I was thinking along the lines of java's anonymous inner classes or
> Python's lambda functions or even Perl's anonymous functions:

Perl's anonymous functions are full closures.  Perl also has garbage
collection, which makes that possible.

Closures are pretty far afield from how C works.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

References:
- Re: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: Unnamed functions, functors or, more formally, function literals
  - From: Kris Warkentin

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