Allen's lambda syntax proposal

Allen Wirfs-Brock Allen.Wirfs-Brock at microsoft.com
Mon Dec 1 12:19:45 PST 2008


Just to clarify some speculation, the syntax I proposed ({||}) was solely inspired by Smalltalk and tempered by the parsing realities of a C-like syntax.  Any similarities to Ruby constructs are probably examples of parallel evolution under similar environmental pressures. I suspect that designers of other languages with C-like syntax (C# comes to mind with its () => expr "lambda" syntax) did not have the experience or goal of using closures to create control abstractions (which often requires passing multi-statement closures) and so arrived at a more function-like concise closure syntax.

(more below)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-
>bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Peter Michaux
>Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:17 AM
>To: P T Withington
...
>>> // Instead of lambda (a, b, c) { ... }, why not:
>>> { |a, b, c| ... } ?
>>
>> I would rather have a more literate syntax, lest we degenerate to
>where
>> practically any comic book blasphemy is a valid program.
>
>I agree with this sentiment. The phrase "ASCII vomit" comes to mind
>and becomes a worry.
>

The use of {} as grouping syntax is inherent in the early (and irrevocable) decision for JavaScript to use a C-like syntax rather than an Algol/Pascal or Lisp like syntax. We already overload {} to bracket both statement blocks and object constructors so it doesn't seem too burdensome to have another syntactically distinct form that from some perspectives is the semantic union of the other two forms.

JavaScript already has a concise "ASCII vomit" syntax for constructing arrays and objects.  Given the direction the language seems to be heading, having a similar concise syntax for constructing closures seems quite appropriate.

Allen


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list