January 16, 2012 9:53 AM

On Jan 15, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
I'm not slamming the door, but I do not want to lumber block-lambdas with more complexity if the hard case is as rare as I contend. Anyway "neat" is not enough. We need an unambiguous prefix syntax.

I agree, this is exactly where I was until Grant's idea came along and seemed worth exploring.

Just to be extremely clear (since I've failed at that, apparenty), I missed the desugaring Grant showed for too long. I agree it's worth exploring, which means exploring alternative syntax ideas to "for ".

So, kudos to Grant (and Axel, who IINM proposed "for " earlier and intended the exception-free desugared semantics).

/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Reply via email to