On Dec 5, 2008, at 6:20 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Michael Day wrote:
Hi Brendan,
Please read
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:lambdas
There is a lot of discussion over whether it is necessary to
introduce
syntax sugar instead of a "lambda" keyword, but is there any
remaining
controversy over the semantics of lambdas in JavaScript, or is that
considered settled at this point?
Semantic or abstract-syntax issues that are not settled include:
Your list of issues (snipped here to reduce context) is good, and
should be reflected in the wiki. Cc'ing Dave.
- how to avoid the hazard pointed out by Mark Miller where a value
can be unintentionally leaked from the tail position of a lambda;
Just to give credit where due, Waldemar was the Cassandra who
prophesied this hazard ;-).
The strawman page has suggested answers for some of these issues, but
not all of them, and the answers given on that page are not fixed in
stone.
That goes without saying -- the answers are fixed in straw! It's not
stoneman:lambdas :-P.
Tradtionally one switches from straw to iron or a stronger metal. At
least for Ada.
/be
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
