🚀 go-pugleaf

ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:

>maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
>
>> Do you personally favour nested functions?
>
>In general, yes.  For C++, I'm not sure.
>
>> If not, why not?
>
>The main argument against it is that C doesn't have them, which means
>that having them in C++ would make C interoperability more difficult.
>It would also be more difficult to interface C++ programs with
>low-level assembly-language things like on-board controllers.  I don't
>care about that personally, but I know that other people do.

I don't see why this is a good counter-argument. After all, C doesn't
have classes, constructors, exceptions, templates, etc., etc., but
we still manage. Why are nested functions so hard? I think that 
Gnu C's implementation of nested functions shows that it does not
cause any particularly difficult implementation problems.

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!