• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: inference of block return type
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: inference of block return type


  • Subject: Re: inference of block return type
  • From: Tony Romano <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:56:43 -0700

The syntax that Bill posted is not in the document. I hate the complexities in this syntax, there is no reason that I can think of to have multiple syntax to represent this object. Even talking to the GCD engineers at the show, they agrees it's overly complex for no apparent good reason.

The syntax below to me seems inconsistent with the analogy the docs claim the block syntax came from (declaring C function ptrs) or at least I don't remember it ever using it in that form. (return type) (^blockname) (parameters) seems sufficient imo. The whole idea was to stick to a format that had precedence but use the new symbol ^(only remaining operator that is not overloadable in C++) instead of *(btw, that wasn't a block with a void return type :-).

Anyhows,  I no longer think this is a cocoa question...
-Tony

On 6/28/10 2:41 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Bill Bumgarner<email@hidden> wrote:
On Jun 28, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Michael Ash wrote:

But I was unable to find any discussion of HOW you explicitly declare
the return value of a block expression.
^<return-type> (<arg-list>) {<code>};
Sure, but is this documented in Apple's docs? The link to Blocks
Programming Topics posted by Tony Romano doesn't seem to include it,
although it alludes to its existence. That page does link to Apple's
submission to the standard committee which does show that syntax, but
it seems like the sort of thing that ought to be on apple.com too. Did
we miss it?

Mike
_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden



_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: inference of block return type
      • From: Bill Bumgarner <email@hidden>
References: 
 >inference of block return type (From: Matt Neuburg <email@hidden>)
 >Re: inference of block return type (From: Tony Romano <email@hidden>)
 >Re: inference of block return type (From: Michael Ash <email@hidden>)
 >Re: inference of block return type (From: Bill Bumgarner <email@hidden>)
 >Re: inference of block return type (From: Michael Ash <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: inference of block return type
  • Next by Date: Re: inference of block return type
  • Previous by thread: Re: inference of block return type
  • Next by thread: Re: inference of block return type
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread