On Dec 4, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Michael Day wrote:
Hi Brendan,
Please read
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:lambdas
There is a lot of discussion over whether it is necessary to
introduce syntax sugar instead of a "lambda" keyword, but is there
any remaining controversy over the semantics of lambdas in
JavaScript, or is that considered settled at this point?
I've created a bikeshedding monster, I admit. It was not entirely
misdirection on my part :-P.
The main contention about lambdas ignoring syntax is whether the
completion-value creates a hazard that needs to be treated somehow, or
even judged as fatal to the proposal.
(To throw some more kerosene on the syntax fire, I would point out
that "fun" for function nicely resembles "var" for variable:
var x = fun y z => y + z;
but it's not big deal :)
Not bad but you lost the necessary (destructuring, default parameters)
parenthesized formal list.
I toyed with 'fun' instead of 'function' in 1995 but it would have
been a misfit in the Java-esque/C-like keyword set, even with 'var'
included.
It's not bad, even now, but it may be that something shorter, or at
least spelled different from any word derived from function (fun, fn)
-- precisely because lambdas as proposed are not like functions in
many ways: arguments, this, return, completion-value.
/be
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
