Christopher Smith wrote:
The article links to the actual standard, which includes this example of
the syntax in the introduction:
Yeah, I saw that link after I posted the question. My bad.
They're basically proposing the same thing that C# does,
I haven't fully digested the standards document, but it appears to allow
this method or the "hold on to a pointer to the frame" approach, at the
runtime's discretion.
I'm having a hard time imagining how the "hold on to a pointer to the
frame" approach will work in all cases if these are first-class values,
and I have a hard time figuring out how ugly this will be given the lack
of GC and the potential oddness of constructor/destructor semantics in
C++. But I'm not interested enough in C++ to work through the proposal
and figure it out. I'm just noticing that the baroqueness of C++ would
seem to complicate every new feature in an NxM kind of way.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
