I think local functions (like the GNU extension) that behave like C++ byref(&) capturing lambdas makes the most sense for C.

You can call the local functions directly and get the benefits of the specialized code.

There's no way to spell out this function's type, and no way to store it anywhere. This is true of regular functions too!

To pass it around you need to use the type-erased "fat pointer" version.

I don't see how anything else makes sense for C.

▲

gpderetta 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> There's no way to spell out this function's type, and no way to store it anywhere. This is true of regular functions too!

well regular functions decay to function pointers. You could have the moral equivalent of std::function_ref (or similarly, borland __closure) in C of course and have closures decay to it.

▲

nutjob2 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The price you pay for GCC nested (local) functions is an executable stack with 'trampolines'.

I'm a fan of nested functions but don't think the executable stack hack is worth it, and using a 'display' is a better solution.

See the Dragon Book or Compiler Construction: Principles and Practice (1984) by Louden

▲

sirwhinesalot 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You misunderstood my comment. GNU local function syntax, C++ [&] lambda behavior (i.e., a hidden struct).

▲

nutjob2 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I really did, my comment is specific to C.

	▲	LegionMammal978 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The only reason that GCC needs executable trampolines is for the program to be able to create an ordinary function pointer and have all the captured data come along with it. The proposal is to reuse the syntax of nested functions, but change the semantics so that they are no longer callable via ordinary function pointers, but rather "fat pointers" that reference the captured data alongside the raw function address. This is similar to the method used by C++ and does not need trampolines.

▲

sylware 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]