From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:40:45 +0100 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <09650C1A-A4C8-4030-81D6-9AC8913970A2@kix.in> References: <09650C1A-A4C8-4030-81D6-9AC8913970A2@kix.in> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] "Blocks" in C Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5e40bbcc-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Perl people love closures. It's one of their common programming techniques. Closures in C? Way to screw its clarity and closeness to the real (or virtual) machine. And in the end closure or no closure doesn't change how the binary looks but allows programmers to pepper source with brain-teasers (now, what does _that_ evaluate to?). Not good at all. --On Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:04 +0200 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 >