[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SOME (and other mapping
- To: "Don Mitchell" <dhm%proact@uunet.UU.NET>, "Bill St. Clair" <uunet!cambridge.apple.com!bill@uunet.UU.NET>, "ministry.cambridge.apple.com!in" <info-mcl@ministry.cambridge.apple.com>
- Subject: Re: SOME (and other mapping
- From: bill@cambridge.apple.com (Bill St. Clair)
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 18:14:12 -0600
At 2:57 PM 1/5/94 -0600, Don Mitchell wrote:
>Subject: RE>>SOME (and other mapping
>Unless there's a trick that I cannot think of, it seems that the
>compiler may safely consider as dynamic-extent any lambda form
>given as the function argument to a mapping function. As far as I
>know, there's no way to get a hold of the function in order to
>accidentally or intentionally return it. In your example
>below, how could the enclosing function possibly return the
>anonymous function? (I sure hope I don't end up embarassed by
>missing something obvious here.)
You haven't missed anything. Genera uses a declaration inside each
mapping function to implement your idea. Another implementation could
enumerate the mapping functions some other way. MCL has no way to identify
a mapping function, hence you need to explicitly include the dynamic-extent
declaration in every caller.