Why not using two version, one is for definition like:
Lambda name (a,b,c) {
}
and for expression, you can use both, like:
a = lambda (a,b,c) {
}
and
a = &(a,b,c) {
}
>> Yes, it doesn't contain a lambda expression, just like:
>>
>> a = x
>> /x/i
>>
>> is not same as:
>>
>> a = x;
>> /x/i
>>
>> they both right but has different meaning...
>
> Okay -- so we agree. In that case, it's clear that your proposed syntax:
>
> &(a,b,c) {...}
>
> has the same problem, right? Any valid ES3 infix operator will have
> the same problem, if we use it as a prefix lambda operator.
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
