On 29 March 2012 21:26, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Nice. This gives functions some of the oomph of block-lambdas (see > https://gist.github.com/**1677893 <https://gist.github.com/1677893> from > @wavded [Marc Harter]). However: > > * Requires function declarations, or seems to -- too restrictive (vs. > arrows as block-lambda replacement in the gist above)? >
I was thinking, it should be possible to extend arrow syntax to allow an optional name? As in: f(n) => n==0 ? 1 : x * f(n-1) As far as I can see, this does not introduce any ambiguity and could still be parsed by cover grammar. And as the example shows, would be useful regardless of return (although not necessarily worthwhile). * Waldemar's point about try/finally standing in the way of a forced > return. Perhaps this is "you get what you ask for". > I wouldn't make it a catchable exception. Finally blocks are executed, but catch is orthogonal. Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'm not proposing any of this for the time being. /Andreas
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
