Re: Function literals and lambda functions

[KennyTM~]

On Mar 7, 11 00:45, Simen kjaeraas wrote:

Russel Winder <rus...@russel.org.uk> wrote:

So why does:

reduce ! ( function double ( double a , double b ) { return a + b ; }
) ( 0.0 , outputData )

fail? It implies that a function literal and a lambda are significantly
different things as far as the compiler is concerned.

Well, they are. One is a delegate literal, the other a function literal.
Delegates may be closures, functions may not.

That said, the above looks like it should work, and I'm not sure why it
doesn't.

Probably unaryFun and binaryFun should accept function pointers as well.