Allen's lambda syntax proposal

Michael Michael at lanex.com
Wed Dec 3 14:28:32 PST 2008


This may be a stupid question, but is the current let expression syntax
defined in JavaScript 1.7 too fundamentally different from the sought out
lambda expression to be repurposed? Or would this wreak havoc on current
uses?

-----Original Message-----
From: es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org]
On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:52 PM
To: Steven Johnson
Cc: Neil Mix; Maciej Stachowiak; Eric Suen; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Allen's lambda syntax proposal

On Dec 3, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Steven Johnson wrote:

> On 12/2/08 7:11 PM, "Neil Mix" <nmix at pandora.com> wrote:
>
>> How's this for a strawman: the choice is to follow either Objective-C
>> or Smalltalk.  Given that Objective-C and JS share syntactical roots
>> in C, it makes more sense to follow the Objective-C precedent.
>
> I find Objective-C's syntax to be its weakest point, so I'm not sure  
> I think
> either one of these is a good idea.
>
> My question is whether a new keyword (or token) is needed for lambda  
> at all.
> Can't the existing "function" keyword be repurposed here?

How? ES3 already defines function expressions as well as definitions.  
They are not the lambdas we seek.

/be
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss at mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss




More information about the Es-discuss mailing list