Block Lambdas: break and continue
Brendan Eich
brendan at mozilla.org
Sun Jan 15 23:46:58 PST 2012
> Axel Rauschmayer <mailto:axel at rauschma.de>
> January 15, 2012 11:32 PM
> The main problem I would have with "for" as a prefix is semantic, not
> grammatical: I would always expect to loop over something iterable and
> not a loop implementation.
Yes, I agree with that and it's what I meant by head-less body (or is it
body-less head?).
But the syntactic ambiguity is a problem too.
> My impression: Let’s wait until we have a more powerful collection
> library (which I assume would use block lambdas extensively). Then it
> should become clear where/if people miss break and continue. A label
> is a reasonable work-around that should even survive the insertion of
> a “loop-ifying” keyword.
Agreed.
>
> Could we call block lambdas just lambdas? The former seems a bit
> pleonastic.
Love that word. I didn't intend a pleonasm but I definitely felt some
need to distinguish block-lambdas from Ruby blocks (while also giving
them a hat tip), and from other lambda strawman proposals, especially
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:lambdas
This looks orphaned in the wiki, so maybe there's no more chance of
confusion. Happy to use "lambda" if I'm not stepping on someone else's toes.
/be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120115/4dce5098/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120115/4dce5098/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the es-discuss
mailing list