Re: [cxx-abi-dev] Lambda conversion

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So, the upshot of the committee discussion yesterday was that we keep the
> conversion, and it and the op() are non-static member functions.

sad. operator() should have been allowed to be static.

> Implementation seems pretty straightforward: the conversion returns the
> address of a static member function (call it __fn), and either the op()
> calls __fn or __fn calls op() with a null object argument.
>
> Anyone object to "__fn" as the name of the static member function?

I would probably suggest making the string 1 longer: "__fun".

>
> Any preference as to which way the call goes?  I suppose we need to take the
> address of __fn in either case, which would argue for making op() the
> wrapper.  OTOH, it might be a bit easier to implement leaving op() alone and
> adding a function that calls it later.

Is there any middle-end issue with a 'null object argument'?
(the middle-end seems to be getting clever every day.)
If yes, that would argue for 'op()' being the wrapper.


>
> Jason
>