three small proposals: the bikeshed cometh!
brendan at mozilla.com
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
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