Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #11061

Re: C++11 lambdas

Show all headers | View raw

Jerry <jerry.jeremiah@gmail.com> writes:
>> lambdas was a function that compiler do it for you, so you
>> cannot declare a function that have a "auto" type argument
>>
>> void (auto pair) { ... }
>>
>> I think compiler cannot work!
>
> Yes, I would never have considered doing this with a free
> function because its obvious that the compiler wouldn't know.
> And yet in the lambda it seemed to be such a good idea even
> thought it obviously the same exact thing.

In the case of a named function, "void fun (auto x) { ... }"
would basically be a more natural syntax for
"template<typename T> void fun (T x) { ... }"

It's discussed here:

http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/Herb-Sutter-C-Questions-and-Answers

[Summary: both were considered and came close to getting in the
standard, but didn't go in for practical reasons.]

-Miles

-- 
Erudition, n. Dust shaken out of a book into an empty skull.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C++11 lambdas Jerry <jerry.jeremiah@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 15:40 -0700
  Re: C++11 lambdas Lucien Coffe <lcof@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-20 06:38 +0000
  Re: C++11 lambdas Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-20 06:41 +0000
    Re: C++11 lambdas Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-20 16:57 +0900
    Re: C++11 lambdas Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:23 -0700
      Re: C++11 lambdas Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2011-09-21 07:14 +0000
        Re: C++11 lambdas Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-09-21 18:25 -0400
  Re: C++11 lambdas ChuanQi Tan <chuanqi.tan@gmail.com> - 2011-10-04 22:04 -0700
    Re: C++11 lambdas Jerry <jerry.jeremiah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-23 15:21 -0700
      Re: C++11 lambdas Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-10-24 17:27 +0900

csiph-web