Allen's lambda syntax proposal
mikeday at yeslogic.com
Thu Dec 4 19:45:16 PST 2008
> 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 :)
Print XML with Prince!
More information about the Es-discuss