... continuing with my sent-too-soon message:
function() {
asyncAction(..., { (a, b) a.add(b); } }
}
You're right, this could be done. Allen's right that aesthetics matter,
and so (aesthetic sensibilities in various people were formed by these)
do older languages. Ruby uses || not (). Smalltalk uses | but
differently, and of course does not use {}.
Apart from aesthetics, I argue that || are better because they are
different from the overloaded () pair, which mean expression grouping in
the nearby context of the body of the block-lambda, e.g. a.add()b;
above. () also are used around formal parameter lists. And of course
they are used for control structure heads, e.g. if (foo).
Rather than overloading () yet again, for a different formal parameter
list context (block-lambda parameter list after {), which is immediately
adjacent to an expression-statement contexts (the block-lambda body), I
believe we should use ||.
The Ruby precedent is another reason, and a particular reason to use |
instead of some other candidate. But I'm mainly trying to persuade you
here that () is not the best choice just because it brackets formal
parameter lists for functions.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
