13 ms·
You could do closure conversion, but then you run into problems with the lifetimes of things, oh and then you're basically reimplementing lisp.
by anaphor 12y ago
You could do closure conversion, but then you run into problems with the lifetimes of things, oh and then you're basically reimplementing lisp.
- overgard 12y agoNot really; C++ now has closures and I'm not going to say it's ideal, but it's not that awful either. The whole "reinventing lisp" argument really only applies to macros at this point (ie: something that fundamentally would require a Lisp to do properly), the other features have been scavenged by other languages without being a lisp just fine.
- mtdewcmu 12y ago"C++ now has closures and... [they're] not that awful" Some high praise, that. C++ closures: they're not that awful.