On Jan 18, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Oliver Hunt <mailto:[email protected]>
>> January 18, 2012 11:37 AM
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Gavin Barraclough wrote:
>>> This seems unlikely to cause any confusion in real usage, since it only
>>> effects an object literal as an operand to a bitwise operator.
>>
>> I dislike the | mode quite a lot, the only obvious reason for that proposal
>> existing is some peoples current love of ruby :)
>
> Not so -- I do not love Ruby. Also, this is essentially an _ad hominem_
> argument.
Many apologies, the ':)' was meant to imply that a knew that that wasn't a
valid argument
>
>> Why not use the C++ lambda syntax?
>
> Because we cannot use (params) { body } without a restricted production *and*
> the result looking too much like a function, or run-together expression and
> block-statement. We've been over this.
>
> Block-lambdas have significantly different semantics due to TCP conformance.
> They ought to look different.
I guess. Maybe the problem here is that I don't like the block-lambda concept
itself. I'll mull on i, and harass you at whatever magical location where
meeting at tomorrow :D
>
> /be
>>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
