> 3) is missing a few real improvements (closures, although it is not clear whether the "nested routines" can be returned) Ah, I wish Blocks[0] would have made

> 3) is missing a few real improvements (closures, although it is not clear whether the "nested routines" can be returned) Ah, I wish Blocks[0] would have made to into the C language as a standard†... Although you can use them with clang already: $ clang -fblocks blocks-test.c # Mac OS X $ clang -fblocks blocks-test.c -lBlocksRuntime # Linux Since closures are poor man's object, I had some fun with them to fake object-orientedness[1]. † or at least that the copyright dispute between Apple and the FSF for integration into GCC would have been resolved (copyright transferred to the FSF being required in spite of a compatible license). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocks_%28C_language_extension%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocks_%28C_language_extension... [1]: https://github.com/lloeki/cblocks-clobj/blob/master/main.c#L13 https://github.com/lloeki/cblocks-clobj/blob/master/main.c#L...