three small proposals: the bikeshed cometh!

Brendan Eich brendan at
Thu Apr 29 21:09:32 PDT 2010

On Apr 29, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

>> We can't keep going around on this. I'm all in favor of shorthand  
>> for function, but TC39 virtually dropped lambda. Do we really need  
>> to revive it (and return to label, and probably other things we  
>> probably can't afford)?
> What's the metric of "afford" here? If these things impose a
> surprising implementation cost, then I'm all ears. Do they?

Maciej's cited objection was not about implementation costs. It was  
about what users will expect. If lambda is seen as a shorthand for  
function, then return in lambda will be read as return *from* lambda.

There's also the surprising runtime error you get when you return from  
a lambda that has escaped and outlived the activation of the nearest  
enclosing function.

Implementation complexity goes up too, but the user confusion issue is  

> In any case, lambda aside, I do think we need at least break and
> continue to unshadowed labels in lexically enclosing functions.

This has the same dynamic error problem in case of inner function  

I've *never* heard any request break or continue to a label in an  
outer function, btw.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list