block-lambda revival

Rob Campbell rcampbell at mozilla.com
Thu Jun 23 16:07:08 PDT 2011


I'm liking the block-lambda syntax, I think more than the arrow. One possible shortening could be to exclude the second bar (|) if no argument variables are specified.

{| // some block of code };

I don't *think* we'd ever start an expression with a single | operator, so there should be no ambiguity.

On 2011-06-23, at 19:27, Brendan Eich wrote:

> On Jun 23, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Jorge wrote:
> 
>>> Anyway, my 2 cents.  Thanks!
>> 
>> {|| ... } for shorter *function* syntax is my favorite too. +1(e9)
> 
> Thanks -- I am continuing to maintain arrow function syntax and block lambda revival as strawmen.
> 
> Arrows now require only two-token lookahead, ignoring the #!~ prefixes proposed for non-configurable, non-writable, and non-enumerable property assignments in object initialisers. This is in order to support either an object literal body or a braced non-empty block body where the block's first statement is not a labeled statement.
> 
> Block lambda revival has more grammar changes, but so far they check out.
> 
> 
>> Also, if any { block } could be a lambda, perhaps we won't need that (nor any new) syntax for block-lambdas.
> 
> We would need new syntax still, for formal parameters.
> 
> Making blocks be expressions requires unifying the ObjectLiteral and Block productions. I don't know how to do this in without at least two-token lookeahead, and it is not a backward compatible change if done for all places where Statement : Block in the current grammar.
> 
> 
>> Also, I'd prefer to know/see clearly when a function is being call()ed, so I'm not very fond of paren-free calls: foo(bar) is clearly an invocation, unlike foo bar,
> 
> Your example is too abstracted to be fair. Concretely, the latter will *always* look like foo {|| bar} ... and never foo bar for any bar.
> 
> 
>> and readability is more important than saving a few keystrokes.
> 
> Readability arguments support the paren-free syntax too. You can't win this by selective arguing.
> 
> 
>> The C language is still (and -ISTM- will be for a long time) important, so -IMO- every little bit of JS's C-like syntax is a plus: less to learn: an old, popular, widely used, well-known, and familiar syntax.
> 
> C by way of Java, and both are boat anchors. Again, where pray tell is 'function' in C?
> 
> 
>> JS -unlike other languages- is important enough that it does not need to follow these (dubious) trendy fashions to become popular. Nor to survive.
> 
> Nothing trendy about Smalltalk blocks unless you are a Rubyist.
> 
> 
>> Proper punctuation aids comprehension and we're programming, not writing quick SMSs.
> 
> This is silly, you're making vague arguments that cut both ways.
> 
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110623/829b71e3/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list