Allen's lambda syntax proposal

[Michael Day]

Hi Brendan,

> The main contention about lambdas ignoring syntax is whether the 
> completion-value creates a hazard that needs to be treated somehow, or 
> even judged as fatal to the proposal.

Completion value, like the last thing to be evaluated in the lambda? 
What exactly is the nature of the hazard?

>> (To throw some more kerosene on the syntax fire, I would point out 
>> that "fun" for function nicely resembles "var" for variable:
>>
>>    var x = fun y z => y + z;
>>
>> but it's not big deal :)
> 
> Not bad but you lost the necessary (destructuring, default parameters) 
> parenthesized formal list.

Right, an arguments list should still look like an arguments list:

     var x = fun (y, z) => y + z

or with an identifier:

     var x = fun fact(n) => (x < 2 ? 1 : n * fact(n-1))

> I toyed with 'fun' instead of 'function' in 1995 but it would have been 
> a misfit in the Java-esque/C-like keyword set, even with 'var' included.

In an alternate universe, you might have used 'method' for functions 
with a 'this' value, saving two characters and the name function for 
real functions :)

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Print XML with Prince!
http://www.princexml.com