4 ms·
His code is also non-portable, and non-standard. I haven't been able to get it to compile on my system yet, but I don't see anywhere that he's capturing the va
by Figs 16y ago
His code is also non-portable, and non-standard.
I haven't been able to get it to compile on my system yet, but I don't see anywhere that he's capturing the variables on the stack, so while you may be able to jump back to your position after one call, you'll loose whatever parameters you passed (assuming you don't simply crash). Also, since it seems to depend on a static variable hidden within the function, I doubt it will work even in single threaded programs if you need multiple generators.
This is just my five minute analysis though, so grain of salt and all that.
- scott_s 16y agoAs I noted below, you can solve the stack problem with setjmp() and longjmp(). But that's only portable across different Unixes, not across all systems which will have C++. But, yes, I am in agreement: function objects are the better solution to this problem in C++. This sort of hackery, while neat, leads to a rats nest of problems.