On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:47 AM, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh? So:
function () {
var foo = 42;
{|| var foo = 3; }
return foo;
}
and:
function () {
var foo = 42;
{ var foo = 3; }
return foo;
}
Give the same answer?
No, because you forgot to call it.
On 2008-12-01, at 11:54EST, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:47 AM, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh? So:
function () {
var foo = 42;
{|| var foo = 3; }
return foo;
}
and:
function () {
var foo = 42;
{ var foo = 3; }
return foo;
}
Give the same answer?
No,
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:31 AM, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-11-30, at 01:30EST, Brendan Eich wrote:
// Instead of lambda (a, b, c) { ... }, why not:
{ |a, b, c| ... } ?
I would rather have a more literate syntax, lest we degenerate to where
practically any comic book
On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:31 AM, P T Withington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-11-30, at 01:30EST, Brendan Eich wrote:
// Instead of lambda (a, b, c) { ... }, why not:
{ |a, b, c| ... } ?
I would rather have a more literate syntax, lest we
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Take an ES program and replace all if-else with ?: and then most
functions with {||} and it starts to look quite cryptic.
But functions remain. I doubt lambdas in any
Just to clarify some speculation, the syntax I proposed ({||}) was solely
inspired by Smalltalk and tempered by the parsing realities of a C-like syntax.
Any similarities to Ruby constructs are probably examples of parallel
evolution under similar environmental pressures. I suspect that
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JavaScript already has a concise ASCII vomit syntax for constructing arrays
and objects.
I didn't mean to imply that JavaScript currently deserves the ASCII
vomit label. I also didn't mean to imply the {||} was so bad
On Nov 29, 2008, at 10:30 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
At the TC39 meeting two weeks ago in Kona, we had a brief
bikeshedding discussion about lambda syntax and why it matters.
Observation: blocks in Smalltalk being lightweight means users don't
mind writing them for control abstractions,
Question: How would I write a recursive function with that syntax? Is
there a way to name the lambda, other than var = {||}; ?
___
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
On 2008-12-01, at 15:59EST, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
\(a, b, c) { ... }
+1
___
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
{|a,b,c| ...} or
\(a,b,c) {...} or
{\(a,b,c) ...}
The use of \ slightly bothers me because it is takes a character
that now is exclusively used in the lexical (token) grammar
( Unicode escapes, string escapes, line continuations)
and gives it syntactic
@ is unused
@(a, b, c){}
Douglas Crockford wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
{|a,b,c| ...} or
\(a,b,c) {...} or
{\(a,b,c) ...}
The use of \ slightly bothers me because it is takes a character
that now is exclusively used in the lexical (token) grammar
( Unicode escapes, string escapes,
Is recursion still desirable in this form. If so, then of the three I like
\(a,b,c) {}
because you can think of the \ as being an abbreviation of function.
\ name(a,b,c) {}
Just don't start your function name with u.
well if we're thinking about lambdas as blocks++, then why not
oh, right, forgot e4x.
ok, one objection to \(){} is that it looks
too much like a function.
in particular, it feels like I should write
var a = \(x){ return x; };
but that isn't right, {||} is sufficiently
different that it feels like I should write
var a = {|x| x};
Brendan Eich wrote:
On
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Crockford
...
because you can think of the \ as being an abbreviation of function.
\ name(a,b,c) {}
Just don't start your function name with u.
Exactly, that's why I didn't
, 2008 12:59 PM
To: Brendan Eich
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Allen's lambda syntax proposal
On Nov 29, 2008, at 10:30 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
At the TC39 meeting two weeks ago in Kona, we had a brief
bikeshedding discussion about lambda syntax and why it matters.
Observation: blocks
On Dec 1, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Crockford
...
because you can think of the \ as being an abbreviation of function.
\ name(a,b,c) {}
Just don't start your
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:es-discuss-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Crockford
...
because you can think of the \ as being an abbreviation of function.
\ name(a,b,c) {}
Just
Breton Slivka wrote:
Is recursion still desirable in this form. If so, then of the three I like
\(a,b,c) {}
because you can think of the \ as being an abbreviation of function.
\ name(a,b,c) {}
Just don't start your function name with u.
Too ambiguous, even with the space.
well
Below
-Original Message-
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you give an example? Since ECMAScript's built-in control
structures already have special syntax, it's hard to make anything
look *exactly* like them.
Here's my best shot at an example. Let's pretend you have a
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The BGGA Java closure proposal attempts to support control abstractions that
look like built in control constructs by allowing trailing literal closure
arguments to appear after the parenthesized argument list (shades
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 29, 2008, at 11:33 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
This would allow writing
var foo = {|a, b, c| ...};
which could be written even shorter as
var foo(a, b, c) {...};
Why ever would you want to use 'var' there?
On Nov 30, 2008, at 12:28 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Nov 29, 2008, at 11:33 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
This would allow writing
var foo = {|a, b, c| ...};
which could be written even shorter as
var foo(a, b, c) {...};
At the TC39 meeting two weeks ago in Kona, we had a brief bikeshedding
discussion about lambda syntax and why it matters. Observation: blocks
in Smalltalk being lightweight means users don't mind writing them for
control abstractions, compared to JS functions in ES3. In Smalltalk,
ignoring
2008/11/29 Brendan Eich [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
// Instead of lambda (a, b, c) { ... }, why not:
{ |a, b, c| ... } ?
In know this syntax primarily from Ruby's blocks.
This would allow writing
var foo = {|a, b, c| ...};
which could be written even shorter as
var foo(a, b, c) {...};
The
Hey, I like that. In the spirit of fun, here's something that does
something weird and random.
var fsm = {
r: {|| Math.random()0.5},
f: {|a| print(a); ( fsm.r() ? fsm.s : fsm.r() ? fsm.m : {||} )(f);},
s: {|a| print(a); ( fsm.r() ? fsm.m : fsm.r() ? fsm.f : {||} )(s) },
On Nov 29, 2008, at 11:33 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
This would allow writing
var foo = {|a, b, c| ...};
which could be written even shorter as
var foo(a, b, c) {...};
Why ever would you want to use 'var' there? Could foo be reassigned to
denote 42, or hello?
Syntax for quite different
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
