Jump to content

Talk:Blocks (C language extension)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page should not mention Grand Central Dispatch more than mentioning that it optionally uses blocks. The many GCD references only serve to further confuse the two. --Devnevyn (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Also, what does this mean? 

Unlike closures in pure functional languages, blocks do not capture all of their surrounding state; 
they only capture copies of their surrounding stack variables.[5]

What state is NOT captured? Globals are captured by reference, and all locals are captured also by reference in a stack block, by copy for a non-__block variable in a heap block, and by owning reference in a __block variable in a heap block. Unless I'm missing something, the statement is wrong, so please elaborate. --Devnevyn (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of these criticisms, I've removed the latter passage entirely and clarified the former. I've removed some non-sequiturs ("Blocks introduce a derived type into the language." Fabulous!) I also removed the misleading reference to C++ lambdas. C++ lambdas differ from blocks in far more than syntax. A comparison would be appropriate, but it must compare more than just the superficial. This article still needs a rewrite/expansion, but it's now more accurate and less misleading. -76.254.63.45 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to GCC nested functions

[edit]

The article should probably also describe the differences with GCC's Nested functions: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.0.4/gcc/Nested-Functions.html#Nested-Functions I went to look it up, thinking that they were the same, but then realized that nested functions, unlike closures, cannot be called after the containing scope has exited.

--Blaisorblade (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've integrated your text above into the article. Thanks! -- The Anome (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 years later, I have to say this part adds nothing to the article. If you never thought that these concepts were the same then it is confusing why the nested functions are being brought up. I am not sure why one person's previous flawed understanding means everyone has to see it in the article. - 70.36.139.84 (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to C++ Lambda functions in GCC and other mainstream compilers

[edit]

Looks like the mainstream of compilers for C/C++ are about to make "Blocks" or "Lambda" functions part of the 4.5 of the GCC compiler.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/349899/what-c-compilers-are-supporting-lambda-already

Lambda is part of the C++0x (C++ language definition update) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blocks (C language extension). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention possible inclusion in C2x?

[edit]

The standards committee has mentioned bringing in blocks to the next official version of C (tentatively scheduled for early 202x) -- would that be appropriate the bring up in the page or is it too speculative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.197.166 (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blocks_(C_language_extension)&oldid=1200190143"