Block Lambdas: break and continue

Brendan Eich brendan at
Mon Jan 16 11:56:10 PST 2012

> Allen Wirfs-Brock <mailto:allen at>
> January 16, 2012 9:53 AM
> On Jan 15, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> I'm not slamming the door, but I do not want to lumber block-lambdas 
>> with more complexity if the hard case is as rare as I contend. Anyway 
>> "neat" is not enough. We need an unambiguous prefix syntax.
> I agree, this is exactly where I was until Grant's idea came along and 
> seemed worth exploring.

Just to be extremely clear (since I've failed at that, apparenty), I 
missed the desugaring Grant showed for too long. I agree it's worth 
exploring, which means exploring alternative syntax ideas to "for ".

So, kudos to Grant (and Axel, who IINM proposed "for " earlier and 
intended the exception-free desugared semantics).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1293 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list