Re: Nested functions (was: Re: GOTO single exit point)

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #4155

#4155

From: Eivind Eklund
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 17:09

19 lines
1309 bytes

In article <KANZE.95Sep25162631@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>,
James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763 <kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de> wrote:
>The easiest solution to this problem would be to simply ban taking the
>address of nested function.  For the rest: I disagree with the term
>``different execution models''.  The compiler must, however generate
>different code; I presume that this is what you are talking about.

PLEASE don't.  I personally find that what I mostly want local
functions for are ONLY taking their address; having local functions
allow you to document that a callback belong to a particular function,
and that it will not be used any other place.

Even better would be anonymous functions; however, I still haven't
found any clean syntax for this (in C).

-- 
Eivind Eklund
eivind.eklund@funcom.com
FUNCOM don't speak for me, and I return the courtesy.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <446noj$1u6@odin.funcom.no>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!funcom.no!not-for-mail

References: <dqua.811915828@dqua> <1995Sep25.114935.1575@ittpub> <KANZE.95Sep25162631@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!funcom.no!not-for-mail
From: eivind@odin.funcom.no (Eivind Eklund)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Nested functions (was: Re: GOTO single exit point)
Date: 25 Sep 1995 18:09:39 +0100
Organization: Funcom Productions.
Message-ID: <446noj$1u6@odin.funcom.no>
References: <dqua.811915828@dqua> <1995Sep25.114935.1575@ittpub> <KANZE.95Sep25162631@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.funcom.no

Reply to Parent Message