On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:34:27 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM, BCS<[email protected]> wrote:
Reply to Jarrett,
I think what's going on here is that the compiler will *only* allocate
closures for nested functions. However allocating a closure for a
delegate of a value object would be a nice addition.
This will quickly devolve into the general escape analysts problem and
here
there be dragons. I think the correct solution is to say it's
unsupported by
calling this an escaping reference bug in the user code.
At least for non-ref-param value types, I don't think it's
unreasonable to say that &obj.func should allocate a closure. I mean,
it's the same as saying
int delegate() dg;
dg.funcptr = &typeof(obj).func;
dg.ptr = &obj;
and the last line there would be illegal to return under normal
circumstances anyway.
But you're probably right that it might just be easier to disallow it
and force people to write { return f.func(); } instead. :)
What about syntax to force closure behavior (on or off)? Not that I have
any to suggest, but if the compiler is going to remain ignorant about
escape analysis, then we should be able to supply the intelligence, and
hacking an extra wrapper function to force behavior seems... well, hackish
:)
-Steve
