From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <09650C1A-A4C8-4030-81D6-9AC8913970A2@kix.in> References: <09650C1A-A4C8-4030-81D6-9AC8913970A2@kix.in> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:43:56 +0200 Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40909020243o275a0340jfea84860a5d2c747@mail.gmail.com> From: Francisco J Ballesteros 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: 5e1f5cb6-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 IMHO, I'd say C is C and I think it's better to leave it as it is. If you want a language with extra features you can probably find one. 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. > > How much effort would it be to support a feature similar to blocks in 8c > (and family)? What are your thoughts on the idea in general? > > -- > Anant > > [1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/10 > >