On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:10 AM, John J Barton wrote: > The blog post http://yehudakatz.com/2012/01/10/javascript-needs-blocks/ > makes the case for blocks that act like functions when passed as arguments > but have loop-up rules more like nested blocks. > > Of course these are called 'block lambdas', and I suggest that this is a > problem. Given that very few programmers understand lambda calculus (and this > will not change), the word 'lambda' is equivalent to "too difficult to > understand". > > When I looked up lambda on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda I read > > In mathematical logic and computer science, lambda is used to introduce an > anonymous function expressed with the concepts of lambda calculus. > > and then "Oh that is what they meant with all that 'block-lambda' stuff". > > If the discussion here were on a new ES feature "anonymous methods", then I > guess many more developers would be interested. If this feature had the > properties outlined in the blog post, then I think many developers would > understand the value of this potential feature. As it is I guess they stop > reading as soon as they see the word 'lambda'.
Except that they aren't "methods" (a function that is associated with an object). If you want a name without "lambda" you might consider "block function" or "functional block" indicating that we are talking about code blocks that may be passed and invoked as function values. Allen > > jjb > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
