On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:30:01PM +0100, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
If you read the statement carefully, you'll see that it says that the construct is useful,
i read that.
and that a better alternative should appear before it is obsoleted.
but i don't read this. a should be obsoleted by b, does not imply that a may not be obsolted while b is still missing.
the problem i see is that
Another method that overcomes these problems will likely be implemented. The problem is that it can give compatibility problems to change old code that uses implicit lambdas to that one, since e.g. return will work differently without giving any sort of error.
will introduce another incompatible change (which users always hate) i'll probably try to avoid implicit lamdas for now because of it.
it's not like: PushPop() { glTranslate( (1.0-0.08)/2, 0.0, 0.0 ); draw_stuff(); };
is so much more easy to write than:
PushPop( lambda(){ glTranslate( (1.0-0.08)/2, 0.0, 0.0 ); draw_stuff(); });
greetings, martin.