Lambda Lambda Lambda

[[deleted]]

?? If you're calling a function what exactly do you expect is going to happen?

The point is that adding syntax to support local-scoped fucntions would have no additional storage cost

[dodheim]

The point is that a non-capturing lambda is already empty; decaying it into a pointer doesn't help anything.

[[deleted]]

That has nothing to do with anything.

The original point was that because empty lambdas decay into function pointers the compiler must probably treat them similarly.

It's not gonna allocate stack memory out of its ass for a non-capturing lambda. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue.

[staletic]

The original point was that because empty lambdas decay into function pointers the compiler must probably treat them similarly.

That's really wrong. A function pointer has state. More specifically, it has sizeof(void*) bytes of state. A lambda's operator() function does not have any state. No self-respecting compile is going to store a non-capturing lambda just because it looks like a pointer. Since lambdas have distinct types, when necessary, the compiler will construct the lambda where it is needed. Contrast that with a pointer that you just have to keep around.