The future of lambda delegates

[kris]

Walter Bright wrote:
> kris wrote:
> 
>> C# gets around all this by (it's claimed) *always* using a heap-based 
>> frame for delegates.
> 
> 
> That's the copout solution. I find more and more nifty uses for 
> (synchronous) delegates, and having to allocate the frames on the heap 
> is too high a price to pay. Paying that price would preclude D from 
> having a viable alternative to C++ expression templates, for example.

I wholeheartedly agree :)


> 
> Static escape analysis can yield 3 results:
> 
> 1) guaranteed to not escape
> 2) might escape
> 3) does escape
> 
> If most of the (1) cases in actual use can be reliably detected as (1), 
> then a reasonable strategy is to do so and allocate on the stack only 
> those proven as (1).

Aye, but doesn't that imply a heap-frame when passing a delegate to 
another function, when you explicitly know all callbacks will be 
synchronous only?

That would not be good at all, so I hope that wouldn't be the case :(