On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Herby Vojčík <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Russell Leggett wrote: > >> Its mostly about being able to make control abstractions - being able to >> make your own loops, conditionals, DSLs - and while you can get close >> with anonymous functions, you'll never get there, because someone will >> want to use 'return' or 'break' or 'throw' and the behavior is all >> screwed up (as we all know). >> >> OTH - if you call a TCO obeying block asynchronously and it calls >> return, what happens? Does it throw an error? Is there a way to make >> that blow up early (maybe not statically, but as part of passing the >> block to the function in the first place?) If not, I fear you may add >> > You don't know if it does a bad thing, until you let it run. > Alternatively, you may want to disallow any and all async lambda blocks. > But from what was presented on the list, async lambda blocks are pefectly > ok until they do the bad thing - only then the error occurs. > > Which is ok, we are in dynamic language, after all. Yeah, I was referring to any async lambda block, but I can see how that would be too restrictive. My problem is that the cognitive load goes up when having to understand more gotchas. Its a measure of overall language complexity. I can see a lot of people supplying blocks instead of functions because the syntax is so much shorter without understanding the actual difference. In ruby this probably comes up less because of what Kevin brought up, ruby is mostly synchronous. Hmm... I'm more on the fence with this than I originally thought. - Russ
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
