Sohail Somani wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 19:46 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:23 -0800, Sohail Somani wrote:
Do you need new class types, or just an anonymous FUNCTION_DECL?
Hi Mark, thanks for your reply.
In general it would be a new class. If the lambda function
Yes they can in fact. So the object can outlive the scope.
As I understand the lambda proposal, the lambda function may not refer
to things that have gone out of scope. It can use *references* that
have gone out of scope, but only if the referent is still in scope.
Since the way that
Of course, all this is silly if nested functions carry around their
lexical scope and can be returned. But I dont know that they do.
A simple test case that would not invoke UB with n1968 lambda functions:
#include stdio.h
typedef void (*fn_t)();
void doinvoke(fn_t f)
{
f();
}
fn_t
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| Also, it appears to me that there is something missing from N1958: there
| is no discussion about what happens when you apply typeid to a lambda
| function, or otherwise use it in a context that requires type_info.
There still are some discussions
There still are some discussions going on (it is not alsways feasable
to reflect all the discussions), especially with respect to callback,
default policy and the like.
[...]
There is the discussion on callbacks.
Are these discussions public? Is there a way to get archives?
Thanks,
Sohail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There still are some discussions going on (it is not alsways feasable
| to reflect all the discussions), especially with respect to callback,
| default policy and the like.
|
| [...]
|
| There is the discussion on callbacks.
|
| Are these discussions public?
Quoting Gabriel Dos Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There is the discussion on callbacks.
|
| Are these discussions public?
Most of them happened at the last C++ committee meetings in Berlin,
Germany and Portland, Oregon). There must be some record on the
EWG wiki, but I
Sohail Somani wrote:
struct __some_random_name
{
void operator()(int t){t++;}
};
for_each(b,e,__some_random_name());
Would this require a new tree node like LAMBDA_FUNCTION or should the
parser do the translation? In the latter case, no new nodes should be
necessary (I think).
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 14:47 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Sohail Somani wrote:
struct __some_random_name
{
void operator()(int t){t++;}
};
for_each(b,e,__some_random_name());
Would this require a new tree node like LAMBDA_FUNCTION or should the
parser do the translation?
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:23 -0800, Sohail Somani wrote:
Do you need new class types, or just an anonymous FUNCTION_DECL?
Hi Mark, thanks for your reply.
In general it would be a new class. If the lambda function looks like:
void myfunc()
{
int a;
...(int i1,int i2) extern (a)
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 19:46 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 15:23 -0800, Sohail Somani wrote:
Do you need new class types, or just an anonymous FUNCTION_DECL?
Hi Mark, thanks for your reply.
In general it would be a new class. If the lambda function looks like:
Hi,
I'm trying to implement proposal n1968 in g++ which basically adds
lambda functions to C++. The obvious way of implementing this is by a
simple translation which generates a function object which is created
where the lambda function is created. Something like:
for_each(b,e,(int t){t++;});
12 matches
Mail list logo
