> I'm not in love with Ruby syntax but {(a, b) a + b} isn't as distinctive and
> clearly a lambda-like thing. You're right about that, but turning back to
> function-based syntax with a different introductory keyword goes the wrong
> direction. This is why I keep coming back to "different syntax is a virtue".
> The correspondence-principle-based semantics are different enough.
Two more pro-pipe points: block lambdas (lambda blocks?) will often be
arguments of functions:
foo( {|x,y| x + y } )
foo( {(x,y) x + y } )
With parens, you are starting to look a bit like Lisp... ;-)
I also find that pipes stick out better as something alien. Parens feel too
much like someone has forgotten to add a semicolon, inside a normal block:
https://gist.github.com/d2c8fcbab5a3da4c4dae (Rick Waldron’s Gist comparing
parens and pipes)
But man does that code profit from block lambdas – really nice to look at. In
some cases, things would fit into a single line where you were forced to split
into multiple lines without BLs.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
