Re: Is gcc able to handle anonymous functions?

[David Kastrup]

Joe Neeman <address@hidden> writes:

>     I think it's exercises like that that help strengthen the Scheme
>     bindings and thus lead to more customizability/extensibility.
>
>
> In this case, I disagree. The function in question is used in 2 places
> in the C++ code, neither of which is a good candidate for
> customization. The only argument for porting this function in the
> first place is that it happened to live in the same file as some other
> stuff (which _did_ make sense to port). That doesn't sound like a very
> good argument to me.

To me it sounds like a Scheme interface to
Pointer_group_interface::find_grob is needed here.

I think being able to move the _entire_ chunk of functionality to Scheme
makes _excellent_ sense since it means we arrive at a piece of
functionality that can serve as a template for _user_ written
functionality without requiring recompilation.

A chunk of Scheme code with "just" one or two semi-trivial C++ functions
required to complete it is useless for that purpose.

-- 
David Kastrup