Why not using two version, one is for definition like: Lambda name (a,b,c) { }
and for expression, you can use both, like: a = lambda (a,b,c) { } and a = &(a,b,c) { } >> Yes, it doesn't contain a lambda expression, just like: >> >> a = x >> /x/i >> >> is not same as: >> >> a = x; >> /x/i >> >> they both right but has different meaning... > > Okay -- so we agree. In that case, it's clear that your proposed syntax: > > &(a,b,c) {...} > > has the same problem, right? Any valid ES3 infix operator will have > the same problem, if we use it as a prefix lambda operator. _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list Es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss