From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1075.2) From: Anant Narayanan In-Reply-To: <5d375e920909030815n74e481f4yad9814f478db5a78@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 05:21:24 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <25CF9336-C071-44A5-AB04-6BB042BC5755@kix.in> References: <09650C1A-A4C8-4030-81D6-9AC8913970A2@kix.in> <5d375e920909020532p1c3bd46l75d89db4f224301e@mail.gmail.com> <9ab217670909020720x6642f30fmaf855420f3d99c7b@mail.gmail.com> <5d375e920909030815n74e481f4yad9814f478db5a78@mail.gmail.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] "Blocks" in C Topicbox-Message-UUID: 63977afc-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sep 3, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Uriel wrote: > Exactly, I still fail to understand the point of this "feature", > function points have worked fine for ages, but then I never understood > any religion, and that is what Apple seems to be all about. Did you even read the article or any of the examples? There are plenty of things that you can "do" with blocks that you can't with just function pointers. That's besides the fact that some of them are more elegantly expressed with blocks that look sort of ugly with function pointers. I understand the argument that blocks don't "feel" C-like, but the argument that you can do everything with just using function pointers is BS. -- Anant