regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Original Message
From: Václav Zeman
Sent: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 08:08 AM
To: Oleg Endo
CC: Rick C. Hodgin ; David Brown
; Joe Buck ; Ian Lance
Taylor ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "self" keyword
>On 14 June 2012 22:42, Oleg Endo wrote:
On 14 June 2012 22:42, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 16:34 -0400, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> Well, I probably don't have a NEED for it. I've gotten along for 25+
>> years without it. :-)
>>
>> However, what prompted my inquiry is using it would've saved me tracking
>> down a
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 16:34 -0400, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> David,
>
> Well, I probably don't have a NEED for it. I've gotten along for 25+
> years without it. :-)
>
> However, what prompted my inquiry is using it would've saved me tracking
> down a few bugs in recent weeks. Some prior code wa
Andreas,
That would work. But now I'm back to remembering to fix something when
I copy / re-use code.
I'll admit it's minor. But we have tools to help us for a reason,
right? :-)
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On 06/14/2012 04:38 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
I can
"Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
> I can also see a use for generated code where there's a base source code
> template in use with an embedded include file reference that changes as
> it's generated per pass, such as:
>
> int step1(int a, int b)
> {
#define self step1
> #include "\current_task\
em with writing out the function name
in full on those occasions?
mvh.,
David
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] on behalf of Ian
Lance Taylor [i...@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Rick C. Hodgin
Cc:
you need recursion -
and what is the problem with writing out the function name in full on
those occasions?
mvh.,
David
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] on behalf of Ian Lance
Taylor [i...@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, June
@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: "self" keyword
"Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
> I was thinking C and C++.
>
> int myclass::foo(int a)
> {
> // recursion
> self(a + 1);
> }
>
> Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't it be accepted back into mainline?
"Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
> I was thinking C and C++.
>
> int myclass::foo(int a)
> {
> // recursion
> self(a + 1);
> }
>
> Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't it be accepted back into mainline?
In general these days GCC discourages language extensions. They would
have to have a compelli
// recursion
self(a + 1);
}
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't it be accepted back into mainline?
Thanks for your help. :-)
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On 06/14/2012 12:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
How hard would it be to implement a "
t of curiosity, why wouldn't it be accepted back into mainline?
>
> Thanks for your help. :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
>
> On 06/14/2012 12:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > "Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
> >
> >> How hard would i
C. Hodgin" writes:
How hard would it be to implement a "self" keyword extension which
references the contextual function name wherein it was referenced?
int foo(int a)
{
// recursion
self(a + 1);
}
int food(int a)
{
// recursion
self(a + 1);
}
Obviously
"Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
> How hard would it be to implement a "self" keyword extension which
> references the contextual function name wherein it was referenced?
>
> int foo(int a)
> {
> // recursion
> self(a + 1);
> }
>
> int f
How hard would it be to implement a "self" keyword extension which
references the contextual function name wherein it was referenced?
int foo(int a)
{
// recursion
self(a + 1);
}
int food(int a)
{
// recursion
self(a + 1);
}
Obviously not a useful example, but de
14 matches
Mail list logo
