From: Powell, Gary (powellg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-03 17:35:32
>> // PROPOSED CHANGE IN SOME FUTURE PAPER
>> unsigned long n = std::accumulate(
>> xs.begin(), xs.end(), 0UL,
>> long (long lhs, X const &rhs) // inline fn with no name.
>> return lhs + rhs.count;
>Yeah, but do you propose to make local names visible inside the anonymous
>function, or not? If you do, you open a big can of worms for implementations
>(recursive nested functions, need I say more?), if you don't, BLL can still
>do things that anonymous functions can not. Anonymous functors could help
>some, but their syntax won't be quite as compact as your example above.
In my plan, variables would have same scope in a function as they do now. i.e. variables local to std::accumulate are not visible in the anonymous fn. And yes its not a panacea. For instance, what about static variables in an anonymous function. Do they have the lifetime of the program, or does the anonymous function have a "lifetime" of the calling function?
unsigned long foo (vector<X> const &xs)
unsigned long n = std::accumulate(
xs.begin(), xs.end(), 0UL,
unsigned long (unsigned long lhs, X const &rhs) // inline fn with no name.
static unsigned long y = 0;
return ++y * (lhs + rhs.count);
// ... initialize xs
unsigned long a = foo(xs);
unsigned long b = foo(xs);
a == b; // depends on the lifetime of foo::anonymous::y
In this case perhaps a functor created with a mix of BLL and an anonymous functions would be clear.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk