Value closures (no GC allocation)

Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat May 20 17:49:23 PDT 2017


On Sunday, 21 May 2017 at 00:43:58 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

>> What are your thoughts? Has something similar been proposed 
>> before?
>
> It has, and I actually don't hate it, but I also don't think it 
> is necessary because of the `scope` storage class being one 
> option and just manually writing out the struct functor being 
> another viable one. The c++ syntax sugar is nice, but I can 
> live without it.

It's not just syntax sugar. We don't always need by-reference 
captures. And it would be nice to be able to store the delegate 
longer than current scope...


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list