closures

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM, BCS<ao at pathlink.com> wrote:
> Reply to Jarrett,
>
>> I think what's going on here is that the compiler will *only* allocate
>> closures for nested functions. However allocating a closure for a
>> delegate of a value object would be a nice addition.
>>
>
> This will quickly devolve into the general escape analysts problem and here
> there be dragons. I think the correct solution is to say it's unsupported by
> calling this an escaping reference bug in the user code.

At least for non-ref-param value types, I don't think it's
unreasonable to say that &obj.func should allocate a closure.  I mean,
it's the same as saying

int delegate() dg;
dg.funcptr = &typeof(obj).func;
dg.ptr = &obj;

and the last line there would be illegal to return under normal
circumstances anyway.

But you're probably right that it might just be easier to disallow it
and force people to write { return f.func(); } instead.  :)