Re: Is gcc able to handle anonymous functions?

[Marc Hohl]

Am 05.07.2012 18:36, schrieb Joe Neeman:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:44 AM, address@hidden 
> <mailto:address@hidden> <address@hidden 
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>
>     On 5 juil. 2012, at 08:14, Joe Neeman wrote:
>
> >     [...]
> >
> >     On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:37 AM, address@hidden
> >     <mailto:address@hidden> <address@hidden
> >     <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> >
> >         On 4 juil. 2012, at 20:10, Marc Hohl wrote:
> >
> >
> >     Why not just leave the function in C++? I have nothing against
> >     porting things to scheme, but in this case it just seems like an
> >     exercise in making things more complicated, for no gain.
>
>     It's doable - the goal was to port the entire thing to Scheme.
>      You're right that it is much easier to write in C++.
>
>     I think it's exercises like that that help strengthen the Scheme
>     bindings and thus lead to more customizability/extensibility.
>
>
> In this case, I disagree. The function in question is used in 2 places 
> in the C++ code, neither of which is a good candidate for customization.
I agree, I don't see a need for customization in this place, either.
> The only argument for porting this function in the first place is that 
> it happened to live in the same file as some other stuff (which _did_ 
> make sense to port). That doesn't sound like a very good argument to me.
If the funtion is not ported, where should it be defined?

Keeping bar-line.cc alive for the definition of one function feels kinda 
weird,
so either I define the helper function in each file where it is used, or 
is there
a better and more global place for this function?

Regards,

Marc
> Cheers,
> Joe