Allen's lambda syntax proposal

Eric Suen eric.suen.tech at gmail.com
Wed Dec 3 18:36:19 PST 2008


No,

^(x) is not a legal expression, so you don't have to make
block in same line, no semicolon insertion will happens here.

see this post:

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-December/008296.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Zeppieri" <jaz-jxCPH4jmHUs at public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.javascript.ecmascript4.general
To: "P T Withington" <ptw-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
Cc: "es-discuss" <es-discuss-4eJtQOnFJqFAfugRpC6u6w at public.gmane.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: Allen's lambda syntax proposal


> 2008/12/3 P T Withington <ptw-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>:
>>
>> - prefix ^ might be confused with the infix operator of the same name
>
> With semicolon insertion, isn't this a bigger problem?
>
> The opening brace will need to be on the same line as the formals,
> otherwise the syntax is ambiguous:
>
> ^(x) {
>  x = x * x
>  ^(a,b,c,d,e,f,g)
>  {
>    x
>  }
> }
>
> And, if it is on the same line, it's still bad for a top-down parser:
>
> ^(x) {
>  x = x * x
>  ^(a,b,c,d,e,f,g) {x}
> }
>
> Will semicolon insertion be illegal inside a lambda body?
>
> -Jon 




More information about the Es-discuss mailing list