Even if anonymous functions were exactly like named functions (they're not), the non-constness of the bindings in your original example prevent inlining, etc.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Fil Mackay <[email protected]>wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Stefan Karpinski > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Yes, named and anonymous functions are quite different. Different >> syntaxes for each are not different. >> > > Yes, that was the conclusion. The type inference on named functions seemed > to be superior - it was the lack of typedness that lead to this thread on > an anonymous function. > > >
