Brendan Eich-3 wrote:
>
>
> I noted the reaction here and in talks I've given, citing the straw poll I
> took about arrow functions, lambdas, there-can-be-only-one. 8/6/unanimous
> (some abstained). IOW, TC39 wants at most one
> lambda-or-just-shorter-function syntax (lambda carries semantics). The
> committee was mixed on arrow functions with Waldemar concerned about
> grammatical issues I've tried to address in the strawman. Others were
> quite in favor of arrows.
>
> Block lambdas were more divisive, in part because of the syntax, but in
> larger part (IMHO) because of the novel TCP semantics. Some on the
> committee decried "excessive bits of cleverness". Others said "won't this
> confuse n00bs?" (Meta-discussion #27 from
> http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/txjs-talk). More than a few were
> quite in favor, though (Allen, Dave Herman, Mark Miller).
>
> So, a mixed reaction and no consensus for ES.next.
>
>
I'm +1 for block level lambdas.
I think we definitely need shorter function syntax, so why not take it with
additional power and simplicity that lambdas will give us. At least this:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_lambda_revival looks
very appealing to me.
-----
Mariusz Nowak
https://github.com/medikoo
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/block-lambda-proposal-in-light-of-compiling-to-JavaScript-tp31876202p31885102.html
Sent from the Mozilla - ECMAScript 4 discussion mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
