On Jan 18, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: >> Oliver Hunt <mailto:oli...@apple.com> >> January 18, 2012 11:37 AM >> >> On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Gavin Barraclough wrote: >>> This seems unlikely to cause any confusion in real usage, since it only >>> effects an object literal as an operand to a bitwise operator. >> >> I dislike the | mode quite a lot, the only obvious reason for that proposal >> existing is some peoples current love of ruby :) > > Not so -- I do not love Ruby. Also, this is essentially an _ad hominem_ > argument.
Many apologies, the ':)' was meant to imply that a knew that that wasn't a valid argument > >> Why not use the C++ lambda syntax? > > Because we cannot use (params) { body } without a restricted production *and* > the result looking too much like a function, or run-together expression and > block-statement. We've been over this. > > Block-lambdas have significantly different semantics due to TCP conformance. > They ought to look different. I guess. Maybe the problem here is that I don't like the block-lambda concept itself. I'll mull on i, and harass you at whatever magical location where meeting at tomorrow :D > > /be >> _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss