I get errors when working with nested functions and structs or scoped classes,
because closures can't be used with anything with scoped destruction. This
makes complete sense, but I don't even want the closure functionality of these
nested functions. Personally, I would like to be able to opt-out
On Sunday 23 January 2011 06:36:27 Sean Eskapp wrote:
I get errors when working with nested functions and structs or scoped
classes, because closures can't be used with anything with scoped
destruction. This makes complete sense, but I don't even want the closure
functionality of these nested
== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article
On Sunday 23 January 2011 06:36:27 Sean Eskapp wrote:
I get errors when working with nested functions and structs or scoped
classes, because closures can't be used with anything with scoped
destruction. This makes complete
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article
Sean Eskapp:
I want to be able to access the enclosing scope, but NOT after the function
has
exited; I should have the option of accessing the enclosing scope, but at
the cost
of making my delegate not a closure.
It seems
Sean Eskapp:
I want to be able to access the enclosing scope, but NOT after the function
has
exited; I should have the option of accessing the enclosing scope, but at the
cost
of making my delegate not a closure.
It seems a worth thing to ask for. A possible syntax (not currently
Andrew Wiley:
I don't like being too negative, but if we're removing scope as a storage
class because it can leave unsafe dangling pointers, how likely is it that
we'll get delegates that can have dangling pointers?
I have written that without too much thinking, so I'm sure that's not a
2011/1/23 Sean Eskapp eatingstap...@gmail.com:
I want to be able to access the enclosing scope, but NOT after the function
has
exited; I should have the option of accessing the enclosing scope, but at the
cost
of making my delegate not a closure.
Until we have a dedicated syntax for it, I
On 2011-01-23 16:08, bearophile wrote:
Sean Eskapp:
I want to be able to access the enclosing scope, but NOT after the function has
exited; I should have the option of accessing the enclosing scope, but at the
cost
of making my delegate not a closure.
It seems a worth thing to ask for. A
== Quote from Torarin (torar...@gmail.com)'s article
2011/1/23 Sean Eskapp eatingstap...@gmail.com:
I want to be able to access the enclosing scope, but NOT after the function
has
exited; I should have the option of accessing the enclosing scope, but at
the cost
of making my delegate
