> I could be wrong, but I feel like you're not really interested in > entertaining that this idea could be useful, but more interested in shooting > it down [...]
remember, if a guy says to the king, hey you're fly's undone, we send that guy to the stockades for a week. meanwhile the king's fly remains undone. since the raison d'etre of blocks is ease of programming, i would think it would follow that it should be uniformly easier across the board. if there are big exceptions to this (like extra locking), i would think the feature would earn a fail. i'm just noting that if blocks require locking as you mention, then this is inferior to calling a function through a pointer. unless you don't accept more locking is worse, it's hard to argue this point. you can accuse me of hating, that won't change how blocks work. > Deep down inside, I want people to stop trying to code stuff like this in C > and try the massively scaled parallelism/concurrency stuff in other > languages better suited to the problem space. why would you use c then? - erik
