From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9ab217670909020720x6642f30fmaf855420f3d99c7b@mail.gmail.com> References: <09650C1A-A4C8-4030-81D6-9AC8913970A2@kix.in> <5d375e920909020532p1c3bd46l75d89db4f224301e@mail.gmail.com> <9ab217670909020720x6642f30fmaf855420f3d99c7b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:15:06 +0200 Message-ID: <5d375e920909030815n74e481f4yad9814f478db5a78@mail.gmail.com> From: Uriel To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [9fans] "Blocks" in C Topicbox-Message-UUID: 615bf812-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > 2009/9/2 Uriel : >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote: >>> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added >>> support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and anonymous >>> functions to C (and it's derivatives). Full details with examples are in the >>> linked article. I think the feature is quite elegant and might be useful in >>> cases where you want map/reduce like functionality in C. >> >> Er., I might be more dumb than usual, but why on earth would you >> need/want this garbage to get map/reduce functionality in C? >> >> To me it seems the typical "lets come up with some cute 'feature' and >> then we will figure out how to hype ourselves all the way to hell". > > I don't see why you'd particularly need / want this in C, but the > argument here seems silly given that you've stressed your affinity to > other languages that implement closures / anonymous functions. My affinity is to language that display *conceptual integrity*. > In any case, implementing closures in C isn't too difficult, and if > you want to return a function, just return a pointer to it. 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. Peace uriel