[DGD] function pointers

[Kris Van Hees]

I must confess that I do not see the fascination with wanting language features
from one family of languages to be incorporated in a language from a totally
different family.  If people want closures in e.g. a MUD or MUD-style system,
why not use a runtime environment (and language) where closures are more of a
natural element?  I really never understood the concept of making significant
changes to an existing runtime environment (driver) for the needs of what runs
on top of it, rather than simply deciding on what driver to use based on those
needs.  Surely, when some features that are a natural fit in the language are
missing, adding them is a benefit to all.  But I'd have to agree (not that it
matters) that function pointers and/or closures do not belong in LPC, or in any
actual OO programming language.

	Kris

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 07:32:40AM -0700, Shentino wrote:
> I must confess to being woefully inexperienced in closures.
> 
> The only exposure I had with them was on simud running on ldmud.
> 
> Their inability to be saved with save_object() proved to be a minor
> irritation and was related to one of the more frequently reported bugs there
> with peasants/peons getting disconnected from their ai modules.  They were,
> however, useful as a shortcut.
> 
> Hopefully when/if closures bloom in dgd, a way to make them compatible with
> online recompilation will be found.  I've got a few ideas on the subject but
> there are some difficulties.
> 
> Interaction with recompilation was another major aspect of the discussion.
>  Theoretical musings made it a very messy thing.