Right, but it doesn't have the lambda capture functionality.


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 5:18 AM Scott Michaud <scott_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Wouldn't this be equivalent to a local, unnamed class?
>
> Godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/ezn8va
>
>
> On 1/11/2021 11:55 PM, Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> I have an idea for a language feature we'll call Lambda Classes.
>
> As placeholder syntax let's say like:
>
> lambda-class:
> lambda-introducer : base-specifier-list_opt {
> member-specification_opt }
>
> So for example:
>
> auto my_lambda_class = [cap1,cap2]: {
> void f() { /*...*/; }
> void g() { /*...*/; }
> };
>
> A lambda class is to a normal class object as a lambda function is to a
> normal function.
>
> A lambda class is an expression that is introduced with the usual capture
> sequence, but is followed by a colon, a (possibly empty) base class list,
> and then a class definition body.
>
> It constructs a new anonymous class type in the same fashion as a normal
> lambda, capturing any variables as specified in the lambda-introducer,
> derives the new class type from any bases in the base-specifier-list, and
> adds any members given in the member-specification, and the value of the
> expression is the (singular) object of that new class type.
>
> The motivation is that there are many use cases where an API asks for an
> object of a class type that implements some interface - either implementing
> a (virtual) polymorphic interface (run-time polymorphism) in traditional
> OOP, or that models a certain concept (compile-time polymorphism) in
> template meta-programming - and in many of both of those use case families,
> the response is to create a single-use class is created just to adapt to
> that API. Like lambda functions, lambda classes help remove a lot of the
> boilerplate and indirection in such use cases.
>
> Let me know if there is any enthusiasm for this and I'll write up a proper
> draft.
>
>
>