Re: Lambda syntax, etc

[Robert Fraser]

BCS wrote:
Reply to Yigal,
Personally I prefer to have syntax for "blocks" like Ruby/smalltalk.
given the following example function:
int func(int a, delegate int(int) dg) { .. }
// call func with [something in this spirit is my favorite]:
func(someInt) { | int a, int b | return a+b; };


how about require that the block arg in the called function name the args

int func(int a, delegate int(int val, int thing) dg) { .. }

and then pull in those names implicitly

func(someInt) { return val+thing; };

This would have implication in overloading and what not but it would be 
syntactically clean.

Ew, no. Aside from the technical issues, this distances the names from 
the use thereof (i.e. they'd likely be in separate files)