On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > The downforce example, at least, is a trivial lambda having no escaping > > closure. That one is okay. The upcast example uses a lambda whose closure > > escapes. That one is *not* okay. > > Wait, you're saying downforce would never heap allocate?? How has the > closure not escaped when we stick (downforce2to1_1 f) into a shared > data structure? The lambda allocated in the downforce example is allocated once, explicitly, at the definition of downforce. No *call* to downforce introduces a new escaping closure. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
