inline bool f( int x ) { return std::abs( x ) < a && s.find( x )
PD> The 'f' above is not really a function, it's a function object, a named PD> lambda. The only difference with Valentin Samko's lambda proposal: PD> http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2006/n1958.pdf PD> is in the syntax. I'd prefer to not be forced to spell the type of the PD> arguments: PD> inline bool less( x, y ) { return x < y; }
This is what I mentioned in Annex A/2. I just did not want to overcomplicate the proposal with template lambdas as this functionality can be added later. With the "auto" keyword one would be able to write auto f = <> less(x, y) { return x < y; }; where "f" is a function object, somewhat equivalent to a local function. This is from a mixture of n1958 and n1968 which we are working on. PD> It doesn't beat Dave's _1 < _2 challenge, but I'm not sure that it has to. The problem with _1 < _2 is that you still need to put it inside {...} to limit the scope of the lambda, and some prefix like <> to avoid the forward lookup which must be done by the compiler. And once you add that, the only difference is that with _1 and _2 you do not have to declare the arguments and need to add the explicit "return" keyword. A bigger problem is how to access local variables in the lambda. There are reasonable objections to all the default options and we may end up disabling access to the local scope variables by default. Also, if I understood Herb Sutter right, he wants to see all the static and namespace scope variables (referenced in the lambda function) to be copied to that lambda object by default by value. This would be more of a problem. Valentin Samko http://val.samko.info