Semantics and abstract syntax of lambdas

Peter Michaux petermichaux at
Thu Dec 18 10:36:40 PST 2008

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:
>> x => x+1
>> x => {{ var y = x+1; y*2 }}
> There's no need to double braces in the => syntax if we require an object
> initialiser to be parenthesized:
> x => ({p: 1, q: true})

Why cause such extra confusion for programmers?

Unfortunately I've lost most of my interest in this discussion as some
folks seem to be desperately in need of some sort of new syntax. I
just don't get it. The lambda(){} syntax would work just fine without
any new feature conflicts. Even if all known conflicts have kludge
workarounds to enable some terse sugary syntax, isn't anyone worried
about the conflicts that will appear later?


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list