> On Nov 15, 2018, at 5:09 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Unlike you I'm in active contact with the developer and the last message was
> only a few months ago.
That’s good news then but I’m not going to hold my breath. Best of luck to the
man.
>
>
> Would it be permitted to add inline declarations of nested functions as a
> temporary replacement? They don’t capture state but at least they solve the
> issue of polluting namespace with named functions which you use in only one
> location. Better than nothing (since that’s what we’re realistically looking
> at) and no new complicated features.
>
> No. This would conflict with the work of Blaise. Also even if we'd add that
> now it would not make 3.2 as it would be a too invasive change. So the
> earliest release would be 3.4 and for that I plan to have the real thing
> integrated into trunk. Thus it would be wasted effort to add that now.
I just went back and read some of old threads of where closure support is at
and it was mentioned that closures (i.e. what Delphi is calling anonymous
functions) are actually a pretty heavy weight concept and require a non-trivial
amount of overheard. Looking at the c-blocks implementation Jonas did the and
RTL behind it confirms this to me.
Given that, having a light-weight “anonymous nested function” (not a “reference
to” closure) is actually a nice compliment and in fact 2 different things. As
FPC’s current c-blocks support demonstrates, it has closure properties but NOT
anonymous functions (yet), which are indeed 2 distance concepts. Seems to be
both are good to have.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
