return when desugaring to closures

[David-Sarah Hopwood]

David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> But what about "let". Do we all agree that in
>>
>>     for (let x = ...) {...x...}
>>     ... x ...
>>
>> the x after the for loop does not refer to the x defined by the for
>> loop?
> 
> Yes, if this form is allowed. The other options are either to require:
> 
>   let x in { for (x = 0; x < 10; x++) {...x...} }
> or
>   let x = 0 in { for (; x < 10; x++) {...x...} }

I meant:

    let (x) { for (x = 0; x < 10; x++) {...x...} }
  or
    let (x = 0) { for (; x < 10; x++) {...x...} }

('let ... in' is similar to the 'local ... in' syntax that Oz uses, and
I think it reads better, but it can't be used in ECMAScript because
the part to the right of the identifier is ambiguous with an application
of the 'in' operator.)

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood