Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!world!wmm
From: wmm@world.std.com (William M Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Proposed: "closures"
Keywords: proposal, closures, function pointers
Message-ID: <1991Apr28.231328.2064@world.std.com>
Date: 28 Apr 91 23:13:28 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.081539.22690@kestrel.edu> <1991Apr23.032208.3264@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <1991Apr26.023303.12141@kestrel.edu>
Distribution: comp.std.c++
Organization: Glockenspiel, Ltd.
Lines: 15

gyro@kestrel.edu (Scott Layson Burson) writes:
> That leaves us with the question of declaration syntax.  Hmm...  Well,
> even though I think it's ugly, there is precedent for the use of the
> `&' in place of the `*' in a declarator to declare "something sortof
> like a pointer".  (Though I wouldn't want to use `&&'.)  Geez, I'm
> really not too crazy about this but I can't think of anything better
> offhand.  That leaves us with:
>...
>        int (&cl)(), (*pf)();

Sorry, "int (&cl)()" already means something: a reference to a function
(yes, it is legal).  You'll have to keep looking for a closure syntax.

-- William M. Miller, Glockenspiel, Ltd.
   wmm@world.std.com