On 9/14/2010 2:25 PM, John Bytheway wrote:
On 14/09/10 03:52, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
I agree, if the macro is named `..._FUNCTION` then `return` is not confusing. What is the use case for unnamed local functions? Is it just the breakable feature? [...] I am not sure of the utility of unnamed local functions but if there is a clear use case for them, they would be really trivial to implement. I think what we need to find is a good use case for this.
One thing that occurs to me is the possibly utility of unnamed local functions which are not void. For example, I sometimes want to have a variable which has to be non-const for a bit while I initialize it, but is then const (in principle). It would be nice to allow enforcing this (somewhat the reverse of BOOST_BLOCK_CONST). [...] Another closely related issue is when you want to have an object briefly to pass to the constructor of another but destroy it soon afterwards (i.e. not have the order of construction be the reverse order of destruction); local functions could help there too. Right now I might do [...]
I think these are worthy use cases. I definitely find myself in these situations occasionally. - Jeff