On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> The risk here may be small but people have run into it before in CL and other
> LISPs and expression languages. It's a bit scary in JS, what with OCAP the
> fundamental security model. So I don't think we should treat it lightly and
> TC39 has not, so far.
Perhaps. OTOH, the half-measure of only partly shortening JS functions, i.e.:
myList.map((x) { return x + 1 })
vs
myList.map((x) { x + 1 })
or
myList.map({|x| x + 1})
is disappointing. Moreover, it essentially means abandoning ever having TCP
lambda. Now, I know that some in the community look at block-lambda with
suspicion (although I'm tempted to call BLUB -- don't knock it till you've
tried it). As ever, we have kind of a Mexican stand-off between
- block lambda (funky pipes, freaks some people out)
- TCP-respecting shorter function (possible return-value leak, freaks some
people out)
- shorter functions with return (still verbose, possible return-value leak,
precludes ever having TCP-respecting lambda)
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
