Allen's lambda syntax proposal

Mark S. Miller erights at
Thu Dec 4 10:34:15 PST 2008

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Jon Zeppieri <jaz at> wrote:

> Okay -- so we agree.  In that case, it's clear that your proposed syntax:
>   &(a,b,c) {...}
> has the same problem, right?  Any valid ES3 infix operator will have
> the same problem, if we use it as a prefix lambda operator.

Welcome to the syntax races. "lambda" takes an early lead, but drops back
because of too much weight. For a while, it's neck and neck between "||" and
"^", with "\" following closely and "fn", "&", and other trailing. Many old
timers (including your commentator) are rooting for "||" because of its
previous historic performances. But "||" trips up over ambiguities not
present on its original track. "^" is now in the lead. Oh no! It trips on a
different ambiguity. This track seems riddled with more ambiguities than any
of these contenders have ever trained on. Seeing "^" stumble, "&" and other
contenders saddled with "binary operator"ness, drop back and concede. "\"
has taken the lead....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Es-discuss mailing list