Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Anonymous Functions.
Message-ID: <791@.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 88 15:00:49 GMT
References: <12074@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, <10716@steinmetz.ge.com> <778@.UUCP>
Organization: SCADA
Lines: 42

Reposted because news wasn't getting off-site. My fault.

In article <282@teletron.UUCP>, andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) writes:
> The { .. } syntax for aggregate declar-
> ations seems natural enough to use for unnamed aggregates, but how would it
> be done for functions?

(lambda nil (...

Just kidding. How about:

	a = (int ()(int i)) {
		for(i=0; i < 10; i++)
			if(foo(i)==MAGIC) break;
		return i;
	}(b);

And again:

	int (*f)(int) = &(int ()(int i)) { ... };

	a = (*f)(b);

Yow! Auto functions! Back to BCPL. But I think it's neat.

In article <2706@geac.UUCP>, daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes:
> | In article <11325@mimsy.UUCP>, chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>              qsort(base, nel, width, compar)
>              char *base;
>              int (*compar)();

> 	EXAMPLE
>              qsort(base, nel, width, { return zcomp($1,$2) });

	qsort(base, nel, width, &(int ()(int a, b)){ return zcomp(a, b); } );

> 	Note the problem with parameters...

I'm actually beginning to like this syntax. Is this a fatal character flaw?
-- 
-- Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
-- Phone: 713-274-5180. Remote UUCP: uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter.