Re:Closures and Objects Are Equivalent (2013)
by wruza on Sunday November 20, 2022 @07:01AM
(#33680268)
“Anonymous function” simply means no name, that would be equally confusing. For “function objects”, closures may be more than just a nice syntax for it. E.g. two closures may share a symbol:
And that symbol still lives in scope:
It may be not the best name, but these nuances beg for a distinct one.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Closures and Objects Are Equivalent (2013)
by IshKebab on Sunday November 20, 2022 @07:49AM
(#33680508)
> For “function objects”, closures may be more than just a nice syntax for it.
Not in any language I've used. I'm not sure what language you've used but in C++ you would have written:
int x;
const auto getx = [&]() { return x; };
x = 5;
getx(); // 5
But that's exactly the same as this: int x;
struct GetxFunctionObject {
int& x;
int operator()() { return x; }
};
const auto getx = GetxFunctionObject { x };
getx(); // 5
(Something like that anyway; it's been a while since I wrote C++)
Re:Closures and Objects Are Equivalent (2013)
by magicalhippo on Sunday November 20, 2022 @09:01AM
(#33680939)
In Delphi, closures are implemented pretty much exactly as your second variant. They're implemented using a compiler-generated class.
A difference is that you can't specify capture type, all captured variables are stored as fields in the class, and any outer references (such as x here) are replaced to use the field in the instance:
struct GetxFunctionObject {
int x;
int operator()() { return x; }
};
const auto getx = GetxFunctionObject();
getx.x = 5; // compiler automatically changes "x = 5" to this
getx(); // 5
Modulo any it's-too-early-in-the-morning-to-write-C++ mistakes I made.I can't recall the details if multiple closures captures the same variable, might be the "obvious" solution of a shared data-class instance.