For lambda expressions, I don't quite get the usefulness of closures in C++11.
auto f = [] (int n, int m) { return n + m };
std::cout << f(2,2);
versus.
int n = 2;
auto f = [n] (int m) { return n + m };
std::cout << f(2);
This is a very basic and primitive example. I'm guessing that closures play an important part in other kinds of statements, but my C++ book doesn't clarify this (so far).
Why not include the closure as a parameter?
OK, a simple example, remove all the x's from a string
char x = 'x';
std::string s = "Text to remove all 'x's from";
s.erase(std::remove_if(s.begin(), s.end(), [x](char c) {return x == c;}), s.end());
Borrowed and modifed from http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/remove
In this example, remove_if() only takes a single parameter, but I need two values for the comparison.
Closures are not always called immediately. They are objects which can be stored and called later when the data necessary to successfully execute the lambda function may no longer be in scope or easily accessible from the call site.
It's possible to to store any necessary data along with the closure but it's so much simpler for the closure to grab anything it needs when it's created and use it when it's eventually called. It provides a form of encapsulation.
This also decreases code coupling because if you were to store the data along with the code then the caller could only work with the specific objects you decided to store. Since a closure carries its own data along with it, it can work with any data it needs.
Here's an greatly oversimplified real-life example. I built a database server which needed to support fields with multiple values. The problem was that when results were displayed, it was important to highlight which values actually caused a record to match the search criteria. So, the query parser would spit out a predicate in the form of a closure which would indicate whether or not it was a matching value.
It looked something like this:
std::function< bool(int value) > parser::match_int(int search_val) {
return [=](int value) { value == search_val; };
}
That closure got stored in a collection. When it was time to render the record, I could easily determine which values needed to be highlighted. Keep in mind that the parser and any associated data is now gone:
void render_values(std::function< bool(int value) > pred, std::vector<int> values) {
for (int value : values) {
if (pred(value))
render_highlight(value);
else
render_normal(value);
}
}
Related
I'm trying to better understand the interactions of lambda expressions and iterators.
What is the difference between these three snippets of code? onSelect is an std::function that is called when a component is selected.
Example 1 and 3 seem to work quite nicely. Example 2 returns the same index value, regardless of the component clicked.
My intuition is that Example 2 only results in one symbol being generated, and therefore the function only points to the first value. My question is, why would for_each result in multiple function definitions being generated, and not the normal for loop?
components[0].onSelect = [&]{ cout<<0; };
components[1].onSelect = [&]{ cout<<1; };
components[2].onSelect = [&]{ cout<<2; };
components[3].onSelect = [&]{ cout<<3; };
//And so on
vs
for (int i = 0; i < numComponents; ++i)
{
components[i].onSelect = [&]
{
cout<<components[i];
};
}
vs
int i = 0;
std::for_each (std::begin (components), std::end (components), [&](auto& component)
{
component.onSelect = [&]{
cout<<i;
});
What is the difference between these three snippets of code?
Well, only the first one is legal.
My intuition is that Example 2 only results in one symbol being generated
Each lambda expression generates a unique unnamed class type in the smallest enclosing scope. You have one block scope (inside the for loop) and one lambda expression so yes, there's only one type.
Each instance of that type (one per iteration) could differ in state, because they could all capture different values of i. They don't, though, they all capture exactly the same lexical scope by reference.
and therefore the function only points to the first value
A lambda expression is always a class type, not a function. A lambda expression with an empty capture is convertible to a free function pointer - but you don't have an empty capture. Finally, the lambda didn't capture only the first value - or any value - but an unusable reference to the variable i. Because you explicitly asked to capture by reference ([&]) instead of value.
That is, they all get the same reference to i whatever its particular value at the time they're instantiated, and i will have been set to numComponents and then gone out of scope before any of them can be invoked. So, even if it hadn't gone out of scope, referring to components[i] would almost certainly be Undefined Behaviour. But as it has gone out of scope, it is a dangling reference. This is an impressive density of bugs in a small amount of code.
Compare the minimal change:
for (int i = 0; i < numComponents; ++i) {
components[i].onSelect = [i, &components]
{
cout<<components[i];
};
}
which captures i by value, which is presumably what you really wanted, and only takes components by reference. This works correctly with no UB.
My question is, why would for_each result in multiple function definitions being generated, and not the normal for loop?
You have two nested lambda expressions in example 3, but we're only concerned with the inner one. That's still a single lambda expression in a single scope, so it's only generating one class type. The main difference is that the i to which it has (again) captured a reference, has presumably not gone out of scope by the time you try calling the lambda.
For example, if you actually wrote (and a minimal reproducible example would have shown this explicitly)
int i = 0;
std::for_each (std::begin (components), std::end (components), [&](auto& component)
{
component.onSelect = [&]{
cout<<i;
});
for (i = 0; i < numComponents; ++i)
components[i].onSelect();
then the reason it would appear to work is that i happens to hold the expected value whenever you call the lambda. Each copy of it still has a reference to the same local variable i though. You can demonstrate this by simply writing something like:
int i = 0;
std::for_each (std::begin (components), std::end (components), [&](auto& component)
{
component.onSelect = [&]{
cout<<i;
});
components[0].onSelect();
components[1].onSelect();
i = 2;
components[1].onSelect();
I'm using the ranges library to help filer data in my classes, like this:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(std::vector<int> v) : vec(v) {}
std::vector<int> getEvens() const
{
auto evens = vec | ranges::views::filter([](int i) { return ! (i % 2); });
return std::vector<int>(evens.begin(), evens.end());
}
private:
std::vector<int> vec;
};
In this case, a new vector is constructed in the getEvents() function. To save on this overhead, I'm wondering if it is possible / advisable to return the range directly from the function?
class MyClass
{
public:
using RangeReturnType = ???;
MyClass(std::vector<int> v) : vec(v) {}
RangeReturnType getEvens() const
{
auto evens = vec | ranges::views::filter([](int i) { return ! (i % 2); });
// ...
return evens;
}
private:
std::vector<int> vec;
};
If it is possible, are there any lifetime considerations that I need to take into account?
I am also interested to know if it is possible / advisable to pass a range in as an argument, or to store it as a member variable. Or is the ranges library more intended for use within the scope of a single function?
This was asked in op's comment section, but I think I will respond it in the answer section:
The Ranges library seems promising, but I'm a little apprehensive about this returning auto.
Remember that even with the addition of auto, C++ is a strongly typed language. In your case, since you are returning evens, then the return type will be the same type of evens. (technically it will be the value type of evens, but evens was a value type anyways)
In fact, you probably really don't want to type out the return type manually: std::ranges::filter_view<std::ranges::ref_view<const std::vector<int>>, MyClass::getEvens() const::<decltype([](int i) {return ! (i % 2);})>> (141 characters)
As mentioned by #Caleth in the comment, in fact, this wouldn't work either as evens was a lambda defined inside the function, and the type of two different lambdas will be different even if they were basically the same, so there's literally no way of getting the full return type here.
While there might be debates on whether to use auto or not in different cases, but I believe most people would just use auto here. Plus your evens was declared with auto too, typing the type out would just make it less readable here.
So what are my options if I want to access a subset (for instance even numbers)? Are there any other approaches I should be considering, with or without the Ranges library?
Depends on how you would access the returned data and the type of the data, you might consider returning std::vector<T*>.
views are really supposed to be viewed from start to end. While you could use views::drop and views::take to limit to a single element, it doesn't provide a subscript operator (yet).
There will also be computational differences. vector need to be computed beforehand, where views are computed while iterating. So when you do:
for(auto i : myObject.getEven())
{
std::cout << i;
}
Under the hood, it is basically doing:
for(auto i : myObject.vec)
{
if(!(i % 2)) std::cout << i;
}
Depends on the amount of data, and the complexity of computations, views might be a lot faster, or about the same as the vector method. Plus you can easily apply multiple filters on the same range without iterating through the data multiple times.
In the end, you can always store the view in a vector:
std::vector<int> vec2(evens.begin(), evens.end());
So my suggestions is, if you have the ranges library, then you should use it.
If not, then vector<T>, vector<T*>, vector<index> depending on the size and copiability of T.
There's no restrictions on the usage of components of the STL in the standard. Of course, there are best practices (eg, string_view instead of string const &).
In this case, I can foresee no problems with handling the view return type directly. That said, the best practices are yet to be decided on since the standard is so new and no compiler has a complete implementation yet.
You're fine to go with the following, in my opinion:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(std::vector<int> v) : vec(std::move(v)) {}
auto getEvens() const
{
return vec | ranges::views::filter([](int i) { return ! (i % 2); });
}
private:
std::vector<int> vec;
};
As you can see here, a range is just something on which you can call begin and end. Nothing more than that.
For instance, you can use the result of begin(range), which is an iterator, to traverse the range, using the ++ operator to advance it.
In general, looking back at the concept I linked above, you can use a range whenever the conext code only requires to be able to call begin and end on it.
Whether this is advisable or enough depends on what you need to do with it. Clearly, if your intention is to pass evens to a function which expects a std::vector (for instance it's a function you cannot change, and it calls .push_back on the entity we are talking about), you clearly have to make a std::vector out of filter's output, which I'd do via
auto evens = vec | ranges::views::filter(whatever) | ranges::to_vector;
but if all the function which you pass evens to does is to loop on it, then
return vec | ranges::views::filter(whatever);
is just fine.
As regards life time considerations, a view is to a range of values what a pointer is to the pointed-to entity: if the latter is destroied, the former will be dangling, and making improper use of it will be undefined behavior. This is an erroneous program:
#include <iostream>
#include <range/v3/view/filter.hpp>
#include <string>
using namespace ranges;
using namespace ranges::views;
auto f() {
// a local vector here
std::vector<std::string> vec{"zero","one","two","three","four","five"};
// return a view on the local vecotor
return vec | filter([](auto){ return true; });
} // vec is gone ---> the view returned is dangling
int main()
{
// the following throws std::bad_alloc for me
for (auto i : f()) {
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
}
You can use ranges::any_view as a type erasure mechanism for any range or combination of ranges.
ranges::any_view<int> getEvens() const
{
return vec | ranges::views::filter([](int i) { return ! (i % 2); });
}
I cannot see any equivalent of this in the STL ranges library; please edit the answer if you can.
EDIT: The problem with ranges::any_view is that it is very slow and inefficient. See https://github.com/ericniebler/range-v3/issues/714.
It is desirable to declare a function returning a range in a header and define it in a cpp file
for compilation firewalls (compilation speed)
stop the language server from going crazy
for better factoring of the code
However, there are complications that make it not advisable:
How to get type of a view?
If defining it in a header is fine, use auto
If performance is not a issue, I would recommend ranges::any_view
Otherwise I'd say it is not advisable.
I want to count the number of elements greater than a number in a c++ vector. The threshold value is to be taken input from the user.
The code for counting elements greater than a number is given as:
ctr=count_if(v.begin(),v.end(), greater1);
The corresponding function:
bool greater1(int value)
{
return value >= 8;
}
The problem is I would know the threshold value(here 8) only before the count_if function call so I need to pass the threshold t as a parameter. How to establish the same?
N.B. Only for c++11 standard
The easiest way to do this is to use a lambda expression. Using that you can build a functor (called a Closure Object) in the call site of count_if and you can use what you known then inside the body of the lambda. That would leave you with something like
auto minimum_value = /* something that gets the minimum value you want to use for the comparison */
auto count = std::count_if(v.begin(), v.end(),[&](auto const& val){ return val >= minimum_value; });
// ^ use this to capture a reference of minimum_value
Make a function that gives you the threshold function!
auto above(int threshold) {
// This captures a copy of threshold
return [=](int value) {
return value >= threshold;
};
};
You can then get the count using above, just by passing the threshold as an argument:
auto count = count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), above(8));
Like NathanOliver said, we need to "capture" the threshold value to be used internally. A lambda accomplishes that, but how?
When you write a lambda like
int threshold = 8;
std::count_if(/*...*/, [threshold](int next_val){return next_val >= threshold;});
In C++11 and beyond, the compiler uses this lambda syntax to generate a lightweight class that exposes the function call operator like so:
struct my_greater_equal
{
explicit my_greater_equal(int _threshold) : threshold(_threshold){}
bool operator()(int next_val) const
{
return next_val >= threshold;
}
int threshold;
};
(This is only mostly like what a lambda looks like)
Then an instance is created and used in count_if as-if:
std::count_if(my_collection.cbegin(), my_collection.cend(), my_greater_equal{8});
Internally, std::count_if calls my_greater_equal::operator() for each element in your collection.
Pre-C++11 we had to manually create these lightweight function objects (sometimes called functors even if that's not technically correct)
C++03 Demo
Things are much easier now :-)
I have a function, f(a,b), that accepts two inputs. I do not know ahead of time which values of a and b will be used. I'm okay with being a little wasteful on memory (I care about speed). I want to be able to check if the output of f(a,b) has already been delivered, and if so, deliver that output again without re-running through the f(a,b) process.
Trivially easy to do in Python with decorators, but C++ is way over my head here.
I would use a std::map (or maybe an std::unordered_map) whose key is a std::pair, or perhaps use a map of maps.
C++11 improvements are probably helpful in that case. Or maybe some Boost thing.
The poster asks:
I want to be able to check if the output of f(a,b) has already been delivered, and if so, deliver that output again without re-running through the f(a,b) process.
It's pretty easy in C++ using a std::map. The fact that the function has exactly two parameters means that we can use std::pair to describe them.
#include <map>
#include <iostream>
uint64_t real_f(int a, int b) {
std::cout << "*";
// Do something tough:
return (uint64_t)a*b;
}
uint64_t memo_f(int a, int b) {
typedef std::pair<int, int> key;
typedef std::map<key, uint64_t> map;
static map m;
key k(a,b);
map::iterator it = m.find(k);
if(it == m.end()) {
return m[k] = real_f(a, b);
}
return it->second;
}
int main () {
std::cout << memo_f(1, 2) << "\n";
std::cout << memo_f(3, 4) << "\n";
std::cout << memo_f(1, 2) << "\n";
std::cout << memo_f(3, 4) << "\n";
std::cout << memo_f(5, 6) << "\n";
}
The output of the above program is:
*2
*12
2
12
*30
The lines without asterisks represent cached results.
With C++11, you could use tasks and futures. Let f be your function:
int f(int a, int b)
{
// Do hard work.
}
Then you would schedule the function execution, which returns you a handle to the return value. This handle is called a future:
template <typename F>
std::future<typename std::result_of<F()>::type>
schedule(F f)
{
typedef typename std::result_of<F()>::type result_type;
std::packaged_task<result_type> task(f);
auto future = task.get_future();
tasks_.push_back(std::move(task)); // Queue the task, execute later.
return std::move(future);
}
Then, you could use this mechanism as follows:
auto future = schedule(std::bind(&f, 42, 43)); // Via std::bind.
auto future = schedule([&] { f(42, 43); }); // Lambda alternative.
if (future.has_value())
{
auto x = future.get(); // Blocks if the result of f(a,b) is not yet availble.
g(x);
}
Disclaimer: my compiler does not support tasks/futures, so the code may have some rough edges.
The main point about this question are the relative expenses in CPU and RAM between calculating f(a,b) and keeping some sort of lookup table to cache results.
Since an exhaustive table of 128 bits index length is not (yet) feasable, we need to reduce the lookup space into a manageable size - this can't be done without some considerations inside your app:
How big is the really used space of function inputs? Is there a pattern in it?
What about the temporal component? Do you expect repeated calculations to be close to one another or ditributed along the timeline?
What about the distribution? Do you assume a tiny part of the index space to consume the majority of function calls?
I would simply start with a fixed-size array of (a,b, f(a,b)) tuples and a linear search. Depending on your pattern as asked above, you might want to
window-slide it (drop oldest on a cache miss): This is good for localized reocurrences
have (a,b,f(a,b),count) tuples with the tuple with the smallest count being expelled - this is good for non-localized occurrences
have some key-function determine a position in the cache (this is good for tiny index space usage)
whatever else Knuth or Google might have thought of
You might also want to benchmark repeated calculation against the lookup mechanism, if the latter becomes more and more complex: std::map and freinds don't come for free, even if they are high-quality implementations.
The only easy way is to use std::map. std::unordered_map does not work. We cannot use std::pair as the key in unordered map. You can do the following,
std::map<pair<int, int>, int> mp;
int func(int a, int b)
{
if (mp.find({a, b}) != mp.end()) return mp[{a, b}];
// compute f(a, b)...
mp[{a, b}] = // computed value;
return mp[{a, b}];
}
I wonder where should we use lambda expression over functor in C++. To me, these two techniques are basically the same, even functor is more elegant and cleaner than lambda. For example, if I want to reuse my predicate, I have to copy the lambda part over and over. So when does lambda really come in to place?
A lambda expression creates an nameless functor, it's syntactic sugar.
So you mainly use it if it makes your code look better. That generally would occur if either (a) you aren't going to reuse the functor, or (b) you are going to reuse it, but from code so totally unrelated to the current code that in order to share it you'd basically end up creating my_favourite_two_line_functors.h, and have disparate files depend on it.
Pretty much the same conditions under which you would type any line(s) of code, and not abstract that code block into a function.
That said, with range-for statements in C++0x, there are some places where you would have used a functor before where it might well make your code look better now to write the code as a loop body, not a functor or a lambda.
1) It's trivial and trying to share it is more work than benefit.
2) Defining a functor simply adds complexity (due to having to make a bunch of member variables and crap).
If neither of those things is true then maybe you should think about defining a functor.
Edit: it seems to be that you need an example of when it would be nice to use a lambda over a functor. Here you go:
typedef std::vector< std::pair<int,std::string> > whatsit_t;
int find_it(std::string value, whatsit_t const& stuff)
{
auto fit = std::find_if(stuff.begin(), stuff.end(), [value](whatsit_t::value_type const& vt) -> bool { return vt.second == value; });
if (fit == stuff.end()) throw std::wtf_error();
return fit->first;
}
Without lambdas you'd have to use something that similarly constructs a functor on the spot or write an externally linkable functor object for something that's annoyingly trivial.
BTW, I think maybe wtf_error is an extension.
Lambdas are basically just syntactic sugar that implement functors (NB: closures are not simple.) In C++0x, you can use the auto keyword to store lambdas locally, and std::function will enable you to store lambdas, or pass them around in a type-safe manner.
Check out the Wikipedia article on C++0x.
Small functions that are not repeated.
The main complain about functors is that they are not in the same place that they were used. So you had to find and read the functor out of context to the place it was being used in (even if it is only being used in one place).
The other problem was that functor required some wiring to get parameters into the functor object. Not complex but all basic boilerplate code. And boiler plate is susceptible to cut and paste problems.
Lambda try and fix both these. But I would use functors if the function is repeated in multiple places or is larger than (can't think up an appropriate term as it will be context sensitive) small.
lambda and functor have context. Functor is a class and therefore can be more complex then a lambda. A function has no context.
#include <iostream>
#include <list>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
//Functions have no context, mod is always 3
bool myFunc(int n) { return n % 3 == 0; }
//Functors have context, e.g. _v
//Functors can be more complex, e.g. additional addNum(...) method
class FunctorV
{
public:
FunctorV(int num ) : _v{num} {}
void addNum(int num) { _v.push_back(num); }
bool operator() (int num)
{
for(int i : _v) {
if( num % i == 0)
return true;
}
return false;
}
private:
vector<int> _v;
};
void print(string prefix,list<int>& l)
{
cout << prefix << "l={ ";
for(int i : l)
cout << i << " ";
cout << "}" << endl;
}
int main()
{
list<int> l={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
print("initial for each test: ",l);
cout << endl;
//function, so no context.
l.remove_if(myFunc);
print("function mod 3: ",l);
cout << endl;
//nameless lambda, context is x
l={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
int x = 3;
l.remove_if([x](int n){ return n % x == 0; });
print("lambda mod x=3: ",l);
x = 4;
l.remove_if([x](int n){ return n % x == 0; });
print("lambda mod x=4: ",l);
cout << endl;
//functor has context and can be more complex
l={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
FunctorV myFunctor(3);
myFunctor.addNum(4);
l.remove_if(myFunctor);
print("functor mod v={3,4}: ",l);
return 0;
}
Output:
initial for each test: l={ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 }
function mod 3: l={ 1 2 4 5 7 8 }
lambda mod x=3: l={ 1 2 4 5 7 8 }
lambda mod x=4: l={ 1 2 5 7 }
functor mod v={3,4}: l={ 1 2 5 7 }
First, i would like to clear some clutter here.
There are two different things
Lambda function
Lambda expression/functor.
Usually, Lambda expression i.e. [] () {} -> return-type does not always synthesize to closure(i.e. kind of functor). Although this is compiler dependent. But you can force compiler by enforcing + sign before [] as +[] () {} -> return-type. This will create function pointer.
Now, coming to your question. You can use lambda repeatedly as follows:
int main()
{
auto print = [i=0] () mutable {return i++;};
cout<<print()<<endl;
cout<<print()<<endl;
cout<<print()<<endl;
// Call as many time as you want
return 0;
}
You should use Lambda wherever it strikes in your mind considering code expressiveness & easy maintainability like you can use it in custom deleters for smart pointers & with most of the STL algorithms.
If you combine Lambda with other features like constexpr, variadic template parameter pack or generic lambda. You can achieve many things.
You can find more about it here
As you pointed out, it works best when you need a one-off and the coding overhead of writing it out as a function isn't worth it.
Conceptually, the decision of which to use is driven by the same criterion as using a named variable versus a in-place expression or constant...
size_t length = strlen(x) + sizeof(y) + z++ + strlen('\0');
...
allocate(length);
std::cout << length;
...here, creating a length variable encourages the program to consider it's correctness and meaning in isolation of it's later use. The name hopefully conveys enough that it can be understood intuitively and independently of it's initial value. It then allows the value to be used several times without repeating the expression (while handling z being different). While here...
allocate(strlen(x) + sizeof(y) + z++ + strlen('\0'));
...the total code is reduced and the value is localised at the point it's needed. The only thing to "carry forwards" from a reading of this line is the side effects of allocation and increment (z), but there's no extra local variable with scope or later use to consider. The programmer has to mentally juggle less state while continuing their analysis of the code.
The same distinction applies to functions versus inline statements. For the purposes of answering your question, functors versus lambdas can be seen as just a particular case of this function versus inlining decision.
I tend to prefer Functors over Lambdas these days. Although they require more code, Functors yield cleaner algorithms. The below comparison between find_id and find_id2 showcase that result. While both yield sufficiently clean code, find_id2 is slightly easier to read as the MatchName(name) definition is extracted from (and secondary to) the primary algorithm.
I would argue, however, that the Functor code should be placed inside implementation files right above the function definition where it is used to provide direct access to the function definition. Otherwise a Lambda would be better for code-locality/organization.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
struct Person {
int id;
string name;
};
typedef vector<Person> People;
int find_id(string const& name, People const& people) {
auto MatchName = [name](Person const& p) -> bool
{
return p.name == name;
};
auto found = find_if(people.begin(), people.end(), MatchName);
if (found == people.end()) return -1;
return found->id;
}
struct MatchName {
string const& name;
MatchName(string const& name) : name(name) {}
bool operator() (Person const& person)
{
return person.name == name;
}
};
int find_id2(string const& name, People const& people) {
auto found = find_if(people.begin(), people.end(), MatchName(name));
if (found == people.end()) return -1;
return found->id;
}
int main() {
People people { {0, "Jim"}, {1, "Pam"}, {2, "Dwight"} };
cout << "Pam's ID is " << find_id("Pam", people) << endl;
cout << "Dwight's ID is " << find_id2("Dwight", people) << endl;
}
The Functor is self-documenting by default; but Lambda's need to be stored in variables (to be self-documenting) inside more-complex algorithm definitions. Hence, it is preferable to not use Lambda's inline as many people do (for code readability) in order to gain the self-documenting benefit as shown above in the MatchName Lambda.
When a Lambda is stored in a variable at the call-site (or used inline), primary algorithms are slightly more difficult to read. Since Lambdas are secondary in nature to algorithms where they are used, it is preferable to clean up the primary algorithms by using self-documenting subroutines (e.g. Functors). This might not matter as much in this example, but if one wanted to use more complex algorithms it can significantly reduce the burden interpreting code.
Functors can be as simple (as in the example above) or complex as they need to be. Sometimes complexity is desirable and cases for dynamic polymorphism (e.g. for strategy/decorator design patterns; or their template-equivalent policy types). This is a use-case Lambda's can not satisfy.
Functors require explicit declaration of capture variables without polluting primary algorithms. When more-and-more capture variables are required by Lambda's the tendency is to use a blanket-capture like [=]. But this reduces readability greatly as one must mentally jump between the Lambda definition and all surrounding local variables, possibly member variables, and more.