Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: on named blocks concept
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 21:49:50 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <vggo9t$29kl7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <4b9a47d628677882c26b2518a78571043ef1bdb9@i2pn2.org>
 <vggdhl$27v1j$1@dont-email.me> <vggecf$27v1j$2@dont-email.me>
 <672BC788.6030100@grunge.pl> <vggjag$28gt1$1@dont-email.me>
 <672BD56E.2010901@grunge.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 22:49:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="425dce3b00381c91a014107c93c4293b";
	logging-data="2413223"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/x3UBJpM6j4igoCKOknibi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jpNz4f6eOf/5RqzCgshFYMQ8pes=
In-Reply-To: <672BD56E.2010901@grunge.pl>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6772

On 06/11/2024 20:45, fir wrote:
> Thiago Adams wrote:
>> On 06/11/2024 16:46, fir wrote:
>>> Thiago Adams wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2024 15:46, Thiago Adams wrote:
>>>>> On 06/11/2024 13:04, fir wrote:
>>>>>> if c would have something that i name as named block
>>>>>> much more interesting options in coding in c would be
>>>>>> imo avaliable..
>>>>>> by named block i understood something like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> foo {
>>>>>>    //code here
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> whiuch resembles function , as can be placed in 'global'
>>>>>> (module level) space but also could be placed locally in
>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int foo() {
>>>>>>    a { }
>>>>>>    b { }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then it could be called internally
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int foo() {
>>>>>>    a { }
>>>>>>    b { }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    int x = a()*a()*b(); //though imo () probab;ly should be optionall
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or externally
>>>>>>
>>>>>> foo.a()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> those blocks probably should have acces to local variables of
>>>>>> parent functions or parant block so it yelds imo to conclusion
>>>>>> that local variables and arguments should be by default static
>>>>>> (those stack variables by default are bad idea imo.. its kinda
>>>>>> optimisation
>>>>>> needed whan you got 4kb RAM but on bigger machines this optimisation
>>>>>> is bad imo)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if so mant things can be done with this blocks probably, im not
>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>> sure what exactly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ona assembly label blocks by defauld probably be done by
>>>>>>
>>>>>> name:
>>>>>>    //...
>>>>>>    ret
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   so then can be reused though some version to call it in place
>>>>>>   of definitions could be also avaliable imo (something like
>>>>>>   a{}() in a sense but better looking (this looks to bad)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   overally those named block should be also united with function
>>>>>>   so they become the same if use on them the functionality of
>>>>>>   passing arguments and returning variables
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   foo {
>>>>>>     a {}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     int x, y = a(1,2)
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   though i maybe not sure how to add this mechanism
>>>>>>   possibly som,ething liek this (until something better could be
>>>>>> found)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   a
>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>    in int c;
>>>>>>    in int d;
>>>>>>    out int x = c+d;
>>>>>>    out int y = c-d;
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   or
>>>>>>   a( int c, int d)
>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>    out int x = c+d;
>>>>>>    out int y = c-d;
>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as all c d x y are static you may call a() without any or
>>>>>> with any set int x, y = a(1) int x = a(1,2) and compiler
>>>>>> would generate the assigments (how to call it on assembly level us
>>>>>> wuite clear, not fully clear is what syntax in language to use
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this concept is yet not fully build yet but what i descrbed her i
>>>>>> guess is okay
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Names loops (only loops) were proposed to C2Y.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I thought your motivation was exit blocks.
>>>> I am not sure what is your motivation now, maybe lambdas? local
>>>> functions? long jump?
>>>> local jumps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> as to lambdas /closures im not sure as i never learned that concepts
>>> (seem wierd and uglt) but maybe
>>> as if you have blocks you could eventually pass blocks to functions
>>>
>>> a {printf("\n %d", i)}
>>>
>>> void foo(int n, block p)
>>> {
>>>    for(int i=0; i<n; i++) p();
>>> }
>>>
>>> foo(10,a);
>>>
>>>
>>> its different than pointers as possibly block could have acces to
>>> parent variables..but that would need to be rethinked as it generate
>>> problems (like you eventually cant compile block a above as i is just
>>> a name so this is more liek piece of text not a real code here
>>>
>>> eventualy some coud do
>>>
>>> a(int i) {printf("\n %d", i)}
>>>
>>> void foo(int n, block p)
>>> {
>>>    for(int i=0; i<n; i++) p(i);
>>> }
>>>
>>> foo(10,a);
>>
>>
>> This is one of the lambda motivations.
>>
> 
> 
> maybe , but thsi is just a kinda detail here, as it is not so much
> difference than passing pointer though it is a difference
> 
> (liek when you pass pointer code takes pointer and here if you pass blck
> it acan be simpli compiled in in compile time (and thus it is possible 
> it can have acces to its all parent fuunction variables).. or may be
> called in this "lambda " way as far as i remember that
> 
> repeat(10, {printf("zzz")} ); //when reepat is a functin that takes block
> 
> but as i said probbaly those blocks could be used for some more things

Some of this stuff, like local functions, is in gnu C.

Most other complex stuff, passing lamda functions, you will find in C++.

But unless it is already in gnu, or has been added to C23 (which may 
take a decade to become common), C is not going to acquire any random 
proposals that you make in threads like this.

At best you might modify one implementation to try out an idea.

I'm not really into either, but I have tried anonymous functions 
(without closures) in my scripting language. Your example looks like 
this (using near-identical syntax):

   proc myrepeat(n, body) =
       to n do
           body()
       end
   end

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========