On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:53:04 -0400, Jason Merrill
wrote:
> On 09/24/2009 11:22 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> Can the lambda (containing X) be copied and put onto a queue? What is
>> its type?
>
> As you said, the lambda has a unique anonymous type. If you want to put
> multiple lambdas into a con
On 09/24/2009 11:22 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
Can the lambda (containing X) be copied and put onto a queue? What is
its type?
As you said, the lambda has a unique anonymous type. If you want to put
multiple lambdas into a container, you can use std::function as the
element type.
Jason
On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:57 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/15/2009 12:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
The second major feature of Blocks vs c++ lambdas is that they can be
"copied onto the heap". This allows things like "Grand Central
Dispatch"
to work: you can write code that executes blocks asyn
On 09/15/2009 12:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
The second major feature of Blocks vs c++ lambdas is that they can be
"copied onto the heap". This allows things like "Grand Central Dispatch"
to work: you can write code that executes blocks asynchronously or on
other threads/work queues (after the fu
Chris Lattner wrote:
> The first difference is that every instance of a lambda gives you a
> value of a new (anonymous) type, which makes them mostly only useful
> with templates.
---
Ahh..didn't know that. That certainly would make them less useful
in a general sense. I've only been expos
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mark Mitchell writes "I'd certainly check with the FSF
> > before betting on that. "
> True, though Apple's entry in the copyright file says "assigns past and
> future changes" (I checked before the above e-mail). Certainly checking
> with the FSF is a good idea.
---
Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
>> While we are discussing apple extension, is there a list of apple
>> specific extension about C and objective compiler ?
>
> There isn't anything good, but some information is available here:
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/L
On Sep 16, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
True, though Apple's entry in the copyright file says "assigns past
and
future changes" (I checked before the above e-mail). Certainly
checking
with the FSF is a good idea.
Ian
While we are discussing apple extension, is there a list of appl
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:20:58 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor
wrote:
> Mark Mitchell writes:
>
>> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> programs. So it seems to me that any changes that Apple makes to gcc
>>> (or gdb, emacs, etc.) can simply be brought over by any interested
>>> party.
>>
>> I'd certainly chec
Mark Mitchell writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> programs. So it seems to me that any changes that Apple makes to gcc
>> (or gdb, emacs, etc.) can simply be brought over by any interested
>> party.
>
> I'd certainly check with the FSF before betting on that. ISTR that some
> copyright assig
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> programs. So it seems to me that any changes that Apple makes to gcc
> (or gdb, emacs, etc.) can simply be brought over by any interested
> party.
I'd certainly check with the FSF before betting on that. ISTR that some
copyright assignments have a "contribution" step;
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:03:35PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >The status is that there is no status, unfortunately (it's an
> >interesting extension...).
> >
> >This extension is not presently implemented in the FSF GCC.
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> writes:
> In general, and this has come up before, there are other things in
> Objective-C 2.0 that we don't have. IIRC the Apple trees left behind
> are a little old and not in good shape. What are the licensing issues
> for borrowing from LLVM leaving asid
On Sep 15, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 09/15/2009 08:28 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks
from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
It is unlikely that this will ever be brought i
Richard Henderson wrote:
On 09/15/2009 08:28 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
It is unlikely that this will ever be brought into GCC, since
it appears to be l
On 09/15/2009 08:28 AM, Vincent R. wrote:
I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks from
what I read) is
also in mainline.
What is the status about this extension ?
It is unlikely that this will ever be brought into GCC, since
it appears to be largely identical to the C+
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:03:35 +0200, Tristan Gingold
wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The status is that there is no status, unfortunately (it's an
>> interesting extension...).
>>
>> This extension is not presently implemented in the FSF GCC.
>> AFAIU th
On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hi,
The status is that there is no status, unfortunately (it's an
interesting extension...).
This extension is not presently implemented in the FSF GCC.
AFAIU there is no reason to believe Apple will contribute patches to
implement it.
I t
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Is there even a formal spec for the language extension?
I think it's http://clang.llvm.org/docs/BlockLanguageSpec.txt as that's the
one they've referred to in their white paper (wg14/n1370). It's not written
in your typical standardese as yet, though, from what I could
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Vincent R. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just was curious to know if closures in apple gcc(called blocks from
> what I read) is
> also in mainline.
> What is the status about this extension ?
Hi,
The status is that there is no status, unfortunately (it's an
interesting exte
20 matches
Mail list logo
