From 1236758874891245333 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,fb1a92fa405c930c X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: James.Kanze@dresdner-bank.com Subject: Re: nested functions Date: 1999/06/24 Message-ID: <7ktm8m$aco$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 493509836 Approved: Valentin Bonnard References: <7jd4c5$nup$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jfkcr$na6$1@engnews1.eng.sun.com> <7jjq0g$tlu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7k5ssr$pll$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7k8ori$ra6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:27:19 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 193.194.7.84 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 24 16:27:19 1999 GMT X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUAN3KWaqwEuYhIxRhxAQFhwgH+KCVH7OP6Nwieu4tM/giX+jjejUE/ja4k 4a6bzALaqlOJWtY9f2hS4Nvj3OEHEG/sj6Mge6gWIy/qG8Vs1QDjsQ== =7Ydr Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article <7k8ori$ra6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, gbush@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <7k5ssr$pll$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > James.Kanze@dresdner-bank.com wrote: > > > > It's important to note that I have *not* done the work necessary to > > present a formal proposal, and that these are mostly just ideas off the > > top of my head. However, my basic idea is that __local_context would be > > defined as containing non-const references to all visible local > > variables and parameters, with the same name as the variable, and > > initialized to refer to the variable. I'm not sure whether these > > members should be protected or public -- I think I rather favor > > protected. And of course, this just defines the semantic; most > > compilers will be able to implement the actual accesses directly, > > without the intervening reference. > Though I like the idea of local context, it doesn't seem very clear how > it should be defined. Why const references are not to be included in > __local_context? Good point. The class should contain non-const references to non-const visible objects, and const references to const visible objects. Note that the use of references is only to explain the semantics. I do not expect the compiler to actually implement it this way. (Or better said, I expect that in this particular case, the references take zero memory.) > Then you may need to have more than one local context if you have more > than one local class. For example, > void f() > { > int i1; > // __local_context1 includes i1 > struct S1: __local_context1 {} s1; > int i2; > // __local_context2 includes i1, s1, i2 > struct S2: __local_context2 {} s2; > // and what kind of __local_context > // the following class inherited > struct S3: S1 {}; // ??? > } > It's certainly not a good idea to have multiple __local_context classes. > Therefore there should be one __local_context class but it's contents, > so to speak, is changing depending where it is used. So it's not really > a class in C++ definition, but some kind of pseudo-class. Each use of __local_context defines a new (nameless) class. -- James Kanze mailto: James.Kanze@dresdner-bank.com Conseils en informatique orientie objet/ Beratung in objekt orientierter Datenverarbeitung Ziegelh|ttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49 (069) 63 19 86 27 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]