🚀 go-pugleaf

In <BxIoDv.72J@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> In article <92Nov10.125426est.47525@neat.cs.toronto.edu> tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai) writes:
> >ALGOL 68 and SIMULA 67 have user-defined types, dynamic memory, and
> >free-form syntax, no?  And why do you need explicit pointers to functions
> >when you can have procedure types, like Modula-2?
> 
> You need explicit pointers to functions when the caller does not know
> the name of the function being called, but the caller has received a
> pointer to the function.

No, you don't need *explicit* pointers to functions. It's perfectly
reasonable (and I would argue, preferable) to allow function names
in argument lists. In C-oid style, this would be:

static char
hook_returning_char(void) {
	return 'a' ;
	}

int
main(void) {
	extern void function_expecting_a_hook(char (void)) ;

	function_expecting_a_hook(hook_returning_char) ;
	}

And, in another file, have:


void
function_expecting_a_hook(char hook(void)) ;

	blah() ;
	foo() ;
	bar() ;
	hook() ;	/* Note: invocation of function of unkown name */
	bletch() ;
	}


	<mike