Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pacbell!att!alberta!teletron!andrew
From: andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: arrays...
Message-ID: <282@teletron.UUCP>
Date: 4 May 88 19:49:32 GMT
References: <5773@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <11325@mimsy.UUCP>
Organization: TeleTronic Communications Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.
Lines: 20


In article <11325@mimsy.UUCP>, chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:

> (Of course, if you add unnamed aggregates, you should also add
> unnamed functions.)

I think that unnamed aggregates would be a great extension for some compiler
vendor to add to the language, so that there will be "prior experience" when
we get around to designing "D".  (No, I'm *not* trying to start another round
of "D" postings.)

I was struck by Chris' comment, however.  How would unnamed functions be
implemented?  How would they be used?  The { .. } syntax for aggregate declar-
ations seems natural enough to use for unnamed aggregates, but how would it
be done for functions?

I'm just curious.  I can't think of how I would use this sucker.
-- 
Andrew Scott
andrew@teletron.uucp	or	{ihnp4, watmath, ..}!alberta!teletron!andrew