Peter Dimov wrote:
What I really want is this:
void foo( myvec& v, const myset& s, int a ) { // ...
inline bool f( int x ) { return std::abs( x ) < a && s.find( x ) != s.end(); }
v.erase( std::remove_if( v.begin(), v.end(), f ), v.end() ); }
for obvious readability reasons. This syntax also allows me to use a more descriptive name instead of f, and the consistency with ordinary function definitions will make it easier to teach. It may be somewhat easier to parse or specify, but I haven't considered this in detail.
I also really like this syntax, and the other example suggested by Peter: inline f( x, y ) { return x < y; } It seems natural and easy to understand. I think not having to specify parameter types when they can be worked out by the compiler is also important. But I'm not a compiler writer. Are there good reasons not to do it this way? Darren