Block lambda is cool, its syntax isn't

Oliver Hunt oliver at apple.com
Wed Jan 18 11:45:25 PST 2012


On Jan 18, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:

>> Oliver Hunt <mailto:oliver at apple.com>
>> January 18, 2012 11:37 AM
>> 
>> On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Gavin Barraclough wrote:
>>> This seems unlikely to cause any confusion in real usage, since it only effects an object literal as an operand to a bitwise operator.
>> 
>> I dislike the | mode quite a lot, the only obvious reason for that proposal existing is some peoples current love of ruby :)
> 
> Not so -- I do not love Ruby. Also, this is essentially an _ad hominem_ argument.

Many apologies, the ':)' was meant to imply that a knew that that wasn't a valid argument

> 
>> Why not use the C++ lambda syntax?
> 
> Because we cannot use (params) { body } without a restricted production *and* the result looking too much like a function, or run-together expression and block-statement. We've been over this.
> 
> Block-lambdas have significantly different semantics due to TCP conformance. They ought to look different.

I guess.  Maybe the problem here is that I don't like the block-lambda concept itself.  I'll mull on i, and harass you at whatever magical location where meeting at tomorrow :D

> 
> /be
>> 



More information about the es-discuss mailing list