Concise functions, Nonexistent lambdas, Explicit tail calls
mikeday at yeslogic.com
Tue Dec 9 14:42:37 PST 2008
> This will break existing code:
As will "lambda":
Or practically any other keyword we can think of. So this problem exists
any way other than opt-in to introduce to new keywords without breaking
> The benefit seems vanishingly small. I don't think it's enough to
> cover the (admittedly minor) cost in language complexity.
Mozilla already has expression comprehensions, albeit without the
parentheses, so this aspect can be evaluated now.
> If you're right about this, I'd consider it a powerful argument
> against the lambda proposal. It's not obvious, however.
Everything currently in the specification describing functions will
still need to be there, even if some of it is rewritten to be expressed
in terms of lambdas. On top of that, lambdas will need to be described.
This will make the spec longer, and have more constructs that need to be
understood. And I'm not convinced that describing functions in terms of
lambdas makes them easier for implementors to understand than just
describing their behaviour directly.
Print XML with Prince!
More information about the Es-discuss