On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net>wrote:
> > Did you even read the article or any of the examples? There are plenty
> > of things that you can "do" with blocks that you can't with just
> > function pointers. That's besides the fact that some of them are more
> > elegantly expressed with blocks that look sort of ugly with function
> > pointers.
>
> on the other hand, apple says this is illegal
>
> dispatch_block_t p;
>
> if(cond){
> p =^ { print("cond\n"); };
> }else{
> p =^ { print("cond\n"); };
> }
> p();
>
> since the first part is equivalent to
>
> if(cond){
> struct Block _t = ...;
> p = &_t;
> }
>
> intuitive? easy to read? pretty?
>
> also, if this from david's example is allowed (i'll assume
> that the original examples' print(X+y) for int X and y
> was a bit of a typo --- i hope!)
>
> block =^ (int x){ print("%d\n", x ); };
>
Wasn't my example... came off an email I cut and pasted from another email
after googling around a bit for block stuff. Also I think you mean printf
since we're being pedantic? :-)
>
> that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
> how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
> the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
>
I don't think I posted the whole code, so that's my bad. The X was on the
stack to begin with as the first X was an automatic variable in a function.
I'd be a little surprised to find an automatic variable in the text
segment, but perhaps that's just my not remembering things properly.
(didn't mean that tongue in cheek, I don't think about that stuff much
these days, as I've spent the last year or so doing Erlang and Haskell.)
>
> - erik
>
>
