Re: Block Lambdas: break and continue

[Brendan Eich]

Axel Rauschmayer January 15, 2012 11:32 PM The main problem I would have with "for" as a prefix is semantic, not grammatical: I would always expect to loop over something iterable and not a loop implementation. Yes, I agree with that and it's what I meant by head-less body (or is it body-less head?). But the syntactic ambiguity is a problem too. My impression: Let’s wait until we have a more powerful collection library (which I assume would use block lambdas extensively). Then it should become clear where/if people miss break and continue. A label is a reasonable work-around that should even survive the insertion of a “loop-ifying” keyword. Agreed. Could we call block lambdas just lambdas? The former seems a bit pleonastic. Love that word. I didn't intend a pleonasm but I definitely felt some need to distinguish block-lambdas from Ruby blocks (while also giving them a hat tip), and from other lambda strawman proposals, especially http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:lambdas This looks orphaned in the wiki, so maybe there's no more chance of confusion. Happy to use "lambda" if I'm not stepping on someone else's toes. /be

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss