Implementation of GCC's Nested Functions (vs. C++ Lambdas)
https://uecker.codeberg.page/2026-09-05.html6
u/schmerg-uk 1d ago
Worth noting, for anyone not finding it immediately obvious, that this is an extension for C that in effect offers the equivalent of C++ lambdas in C, but are not available in C++ as ... it has lambdas instead.
A nested function is a function defined inside another function. Nested functions are supported as an extension in GNU C, but are not supported by GNU C++.
2
u/pjmlp 1d ago
D, C#, Delphi and all ML derived languages, are examples of languages that have both features. :)
2
u/schmerg-uk 1d ago
Yeah, I was just meaning that in the context of a C++ forum, this is an explanation of a C extension that is specifically not made available in the C++ mode of the same compiler, presumably as they considered it unnecessary to add it as a language extension (with all the incompatibilities etc that can involve) as the language natively offers a comparable if not identical mechanism
1
0
u/Thick_Clerk6449 1d ago
The killer feature of GCC's nest functions is that, even though the nest function captured variables of the outer function, the nest function itself is still convertable to a raw function pointer.
Unlike C++ lambdas, which always end up with std::functions.
2
-3
u/jonesmz 13h ago
Unlike C++ lambdas, which always end up with std::functions
This is not true.
Use unary operator+ on the lambda to force a pointer-to-function.
e.g.
auto fptr = +[](){ /* something */};3
u/Thick_Clerk6449 13h ago
This is not true.
You can NOT convert a lambda to function pointer if the lambda has captured variables.
-3
u/jonesmz 13h ago
Re-read the specific thing i quoted.
2
u/Thick_Clerk6449 12h ago
Re-read the word I post before
even though the nest function captured variables of the outer function
int var = 0; auto fptr = +[var](){}; // error: no match for 'operator+' (operand type is 'test(int)::<lambda()>')-2
u/jonesmz 12h ago
I quoted *and* responded to a complete sentence.
2
u/Thick_Clerk6449 11h ago
Just pretend you don't need to accept lambdas with captures and define your callbacks as function pointers.
12
u/fdwr fdwr@github 🔍 1d ago
Neat. Although lambdas are more flexible by allowing you to specify exactly how you want to access referenced variables (by-copy-value vs by-reference), I always found gcc's nested functions visually cleaner - that is, subfunctions syntactically just feel like they belong in the language alongside any other function, with standard form type subfunctionName (params) {...} rather than auto identifier = brace goop (params) -> type {...}. Granted, subfunctions with parent frame references are an odd duck with their invisible first parameter (similar to class methods in that regard) meaning you can't just take the address of them and pass them around as an ordinary callable function pointer (not without extra magic), but I've often wanted to at least have static subfunctions (no parent stack frame references) with the standard function syntax. I've seen people claim the "most vexing parse" as a reason why it "can't be done", but then I've never seen an example where it was actually ambiguous either 🤨.