https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
--- Comment #5 from Shawn Landden shawn at churchofgit dot com ---
http://mackyle.github.io/blocksruntime/#download
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
Shawn Landden shawn at churchofgit dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||shawn at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rob Staudinger from comment #3)
For the record, this is already possible using bracketed expressions, but
the syntactical sugar of not having to pick a function name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
--- Comment #3 from Rob Staudinger robert.staudinger at gmail dot com
2010-10-25 07:31:59 UTC ---
For the record, this is already possible using bracketed expressions, but the
syntactical sugar of not having to pick a function name would be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
--- Comment #2 from Rob Staudinger robert.staudinger at gmail dot com
2010-10-22 08:33:46 UTC ---
There obviously is some relation, but this proposal evades syntactical
overloading of operators, unlike C++ lambda functions or LLVM blocks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-21
18:38:31 UTC ---
This sounds like C++ lambda functions.
Second, I think this is a bad idea for C.
