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
[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?
> 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,
So
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 discussion
> 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
typedef void (*fn_t)();
void doinvoke(fn_t f)
{
f();
}
fn_t getit(int
>> 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
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 lamb
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
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)
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
