3 ms·

"C blocks" == closures?

• baxter 17y ago
  They don't sound far off. Wikipedia agrees with you so far :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocks_%28C_language_extension%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocks_%28C_language_extension%... The Ars Technica review of Snow Leopard features a nice introduction to the new language feature: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/10 http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.a...
• silentbicycle 17y ago
  They're immutable, though. (For sake of parallelization.)
  • JulianMorrison 17y ago
    Pretty similar to Java anonymous inner instances of Runnable and Callable, then.
    • nevyn 17y ago
      Except those can't read nor modify variables in their enclosing scope. Anonymous inner instances are more akin to C's nested functions, which GCC has had for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong though (which would only make me very happy); been years since I did Java.
      • JulianMorrison 17y ago
        They can read and modify object fields in their outer class's instance. But it's true they can't modify stack variables. This makes contextual sense - C blocks are being stack allocated and have to be explicitly copied to the heap. Java inner instances get copied immediately, because everything lives on the heap in Java.
  • eru 17y ago
    Proper closures in a pure language are immutable, too.
    • silentbicycle 17y ago
      Well, sure, but that's not usually what people are talking about when they mean closures.
    • gloob 17y ago
      Depending on how pure the language is, /variables/ can be immutable. Nonetheless, the standard, default, run-of-the-mill variables that most programmers will run into most of the time are not. Same goes for closures.
• deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]