Repository navigation
Implement Closure #2753
Description
Activity
Any progress on this @HerrCai0907 ?
I personally truly wish we had threads and closure support, I am looking at the AssemblyScript since a few years now, waiting for those features to land to be able to use it more often and I feel like I am not alone.
This project is super exciting and yet we are missing core features for the language to be more broadly used.
Reacted by Luo Gang and 맛카치Has there been talk of not implementing full closures, but enough "syntactic sugar" to make lambdas useful?
Basically look at old java or c++ and do something like;
- Define an "internal"
interface Function { call(...any[]): any; } - Make lambdas convert to an object implementing this interface as needed
- Create fields for every variable in the outer scope that is accessed by the lambda, and assigned them by value
So something like (pseudo-code warning);
class Array { map(function: Function): Array { // ... function.call(...) } } let a: u32 = 1 let b = new MyObj() let newList = someList.map(item -> item + a + b.get())
Where the compiler transforms the last line to;
class UnNameableFunction implements Function { a: u32 b: myObj call(item: u32): u32) { return item + a + b.get() } } temp = new UnNameableFunction() temp.a = a temp.b = b let newList = someList.map(temp)
Reacted by Manu- Define an "internal"
It need more work than I expected. Closure is a big challenge since it need lots of compiler internal feature to support. e.g. create a temporary object / class definition in local context as the definition of closure object.
Feature suggestion
#798 and #1240 has discussed lots of thing about closure, but maybe there are some outdated information.
So I want to start to discuss it in some new page.
Project State
High Level Requirement For Closure
What should we do to support closure
For better code review, I think maybe we can support it step by step. I will post everything we need to implement closure. Please correct my mistakes and omissions.
code gen
semantic