On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote:

> > 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.
>
> on the other hand, apple says this is illegal
>
>        dispatch_block_t p;
>
>        if(cond){
>                p =^ { print("cond\n"); };
>        }else{
>                p =^ { print("cond\n"); };
>        }
>        p();
>
> since the first part is equivalent to
>
>        if(cond){
>                struct Block _t = ...;
>                p = &_t;
>        }
>
> intuitive?  easy to read? pretty?
>
> also, if this from david's example is allowed (i'll assume
> that the original examples' print(X+y) for int X and y
> was a bit of a typo --- i hope!)
>
>        block =^ (int x){ print("%d\n", x ); };
>

Wasn't my example... came off an email I cut and pasted from another email
after googling around a bit for block stuff.  Also I think you mean printf
since we're being pedantic? :-)


>
> that sucker is on the stack.  by-by no-execute stack.
> how does it get to the stack?  is it just copied from
> the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
>

I don't think I posted the whole code, so that's my bad.  The X was on the
stack to begin with as the first X was an automatic variable in a function.
 I'd be a little surprised to find an automatic variable in the text
segment, but perhaps that's just my not remembering things properly.
 (didn't mean that tongue in cheek, I don't think about that stuff much
these days, as I've spent the last year or so doing Erlang and Haskell.)


>
> - erik
>
>