Re: [Vala] Implicit lamdas/closures

["Michael 'Mickey' Lauer" <mickey vanille-media de>]

Am Wednesday 17 September 2008 00:34:08 schrieb Jürg Billeter:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 22:48 +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > Here I am working my self into brain fever, and not a peep!
> >
> > No-one says "stop him, the fool" or "darn fiendish cunning" or even
> > "he's using goto's, the churlish knave".
> >
> > No-ones saying "don't taint the language with your base practicalities"
> > or even "whatever can it mean?"
> >
> > Someone say something before I get dragged back to more fiscally
> > accountable projects.
> >
> > If I write the code is it likely to be accepted?
>
> I like the idea of adding language support for asynchronous method
> calls, I was thinking of implementing this for some months but it wasn't
> on the top of my todo list.
>
> I haven't tried implementing this, but I think that the Vala code could
> be made even simpler and the labels should not be necessary. My idea is
> to introduce a modifier/attribute to mark methods as async capable. If
> you call an async method using the `yield' keyword, it will
> automatically introduce a continuation point there, i.e., add a callback
> and return in C. The async method call will not accept any delegate or
> lambda, it will just implicitly use the rest of the method body.

That sounds amazing. Could we use this to have the missing support for async. 
dbus server support or is that only useful for the client?

-- 
:M: