On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > We discussed this on the list. Maciej argued strongly against TCP as maximum > good that trumps other considerations: > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-December/008390.html [...] > Then you > replied: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-December/008391.html > And Allen > agreed: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-December/008392.html > [...] > The explicit completion value here-syntax in Dave's let expression proposal > does not address all the concerns from this end-of-2008 lambda thread.
No, but Dave's syntax does address one of the main reasons I gave up on lambda. The prospect of introducing it anyway to support the let expression makes lambda seem like a much lighter weight concept to me. > We can't keep going around on this. I'm all in favor of shorthand for > function, but TC39 virtually dropped lambda. Do we really need to revive it > (and return to label, and probably other things we probably can't afford)? What's the metric of "afford" here? If these things impose a surprising implementation cost, then I'm all ears. Do they? In any case, lambda aside, I do think we need at least break and continue to unshadowed labels in lexically enclosing functions. Since labels are already a separate namespace, and since a break or continue to a non-local label is currently a static error, generalizing labels to follow inter-procedural static scope visibility would be fully upwards compatible with zero new syntax. It would make the language psychologically simpler by removing the need to explain an irregular restriction. Given these, I'd also like a return to label if a nice syntax can be found. I don't like the currently proposed syntax, but have nothing better to suggest. > /be -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
