Allen's lambda syntax proposal

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Wed Dec 3 15:33:55 PST 2008


First, let expressions as implemented in JS1.7 are ambiguous in a  
bottom up grammar. See

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-October/007890.html

Second, let statements and expressions in JS1.7 are evaluated when  
reached. They are not implicitly quoted for later application.

Third, let is the wrong keyword if there's no need to bind a name --  
as there indeed is no need with many (most?) lambda use-cases.

/be

On Dec 3, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Breton Slivka wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Michael <Michael at lanex.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> I had kind of a similar thought about let statements. Would it be
> possible to simply turn a let statement into an assignable/callable
> value? Would that just break too many things? would it get us at least
> close to the lambda functionality we seek?
> _______________________________________________
> Es-discuss mailing list
> Es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



More information about the Es-discuss mailing list