return when desugaring to closures
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Sat Oct 11 14:37:40 PDT 2008
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Peter Michaux <petermichaux at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it would be ok to have only unnamed lambdas. (It would be ok
> to have named lambdas too.)
I think we should not introduce named lambdas because then we'd need
to decide whether the scoping of a lambda name works the same as the
scoping of a function name. Do we really want to reproduce the
* Distinction between named function expressions vs named function declarations?
* The name of a name function expression is only in scope within the
function, whereas the name of a named function declaration is in
(letrec) scope in the containing block.
* Because these look the same, a named function expression cannot be
used naked as the start of an expression statement. It must wear
* For consistency, an anonymous function expression also cannot be
used as a naked as the start of an expression statement.
If lambdas had optional names, we would either need to reproduce the
above confusions or deviate from them. Either choice is terribly
More information about the Es-discuss