4 ms·

I figure closures would be hard to do in a programmer-friendly way without GC.

• albertzeyer 16y ago
  smart pointers would also do it.
• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• mathias_10gen 16y ago
  C++0x managed to add closures without adding GC. The only issue is that if you want to the closure to outlive the current stack frame you have to capture by value ([=] rather than [&]) or use a shared_ptr (which is then copied by value).
• moultano 16y ago
  The C++ closure library we use internally at Google has you specify whether the callback is permanent or not. If it isn't permanent, its deleted right after executing. It is a little painful maintaining the memory of your arguments, but people have generally converged to packing them all into a heap allocated struct and deleting when appropriate.
• davidxa 16y ago
  If you implement closures as thunks, you can just free them when done, no need for GC. closure int foo(int x) {return x + y;} int(*foo_p)(int) = malloc(sizeof(foo)); memcpy(foo_p,&foo,sizeof(foo)); return foo_p; So, you can add working closures in one keyword (and possibly a special case for function pointer decay).