2012/1/13 Quildreen Motta <quildr...@gmail.com>: > I have an obvious bias towards 1 because I think Unicode symbols > describe much better the underlying intentions and semantics than > their ASCII alternatives (usually), however not many people creates > mappings for these symbols on their .XCompose (or even have a compose > key handy). > > I remember you mentioning that the Haskell-ish alternative `\x, y { > body }' or `.\x, y { body }' was not practical, because \ is already a > valid escaping character in identifiers (?) > > Given those above, despite my usual disliking of Ruby syntax, I prefer > the pipes over parenthesis, given the latter has an already too > overloaded semantics, such that `{ (foo, bar) (2) }' would look pretty > confusing, at least to me. However, what about `{x, y: body}'? Granted > we don't allow labels immediately following a lambda block (and I'm > not sure labels are used much in the language, I could be wrong > however).
That would mean that a block lambda with no parameters is {: body} Don't you think it looks odd? Plus, parentheses are what JS uses for parameters. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss