Harmony modules feedback

I did a blog post on AMD that also talks about harmony modules. In the "ECMAScript" section I talk about some of the questions I have about with harmony modules: http://tagneto.blogspot.com/2012/01/simplicity-and-javascript-modules.html It is a fairly long post, not all of it applies to ECMAScrip

Re: Anonymous methods

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > > > How about "first class blocks" or "callable blocks"? > > I also suggest "callable blocks" in a private email. Also a couple of > others: functional block and block function. >

Re: Anonymous methods

On Jan 11, 2012, at 2:11 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > How about "first class blocks" or "callable blocks"? I also suggest "callable blocks" in a private email. Also a couple of others: functional block and block function. I like "callable blocks" in that it emphasizes the block-ness (and

Re: Anonymous methods

Are we in 2012 seriously saying the word "lambda" is scary to developers? This sounds ridiculous. The word lambda is widely used by programmers in a variety of communities. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Bruant wrote: > Le 11/01/2012 22:42, John J Barton a écrit : > > On Wed, Jan 11, 20

Re: Anonymous methods

Le 11/01/2012 22:42, John J Barton a écrit : > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM, David Bruant > wrote: > > From your e-mail, it seems granted that "more developers > interested" is a good thing. I can't really say whether I agree or > not. So I guess I should

Re: Anonymous methods

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM, John J Barton wrote: [...] > Of course I disagree. "Block Lambda" is like "sodium lauryl ether > sulfate": a technically correct name with complex connotations unrelated to > the end-users need. > > Good names are hard to design, but they are important. > How abou

Re: Anonymous methods

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM, David Bruant wrote: > Le 11/01/2012 19:10, John J Barton a écrit : > > The blog post http://yehudakatz.com/2012/01/10/javascript-needs-blocks/ makes > the case for blocks that act like functions when passed as arguments but > have loop-up rules more like nested

Re: Anonymous methods

Le 11/01/2012 19:10, John J Barton a écrit : > The blog post > http://yehudakatz.com/2012/01/10/javascript-needs-blocks/ makes the > case for blocks that act like functions when passed as arguments but > have loop-up rules more like nested blocks. > > Of course these are called 'block lambdas', a

Re: Anonymous methods

I believe when we talk about lambda here, we don't exactly mean addressable anonymous functions :-) # python lambda g = lambda x: x*x g(8) # 64 // JS lambda function lambda(exp) { var body = exp.split(":"); return Function(body[0], "return " + body.slice(1).join(":")); } var g = lambda("x: x

Re: Anonymous methods

On Jan 11, 2012, at 10:10 AM, John J Barton wrote: > The blog post http://yehudakatz.com/2012/01/10/javascript-needs-blocks/ > makes the case for blocks that act like functions when passed as arguments > but have loop-up rules more like nested blocks. > > Of course these are called 'block la

Re: Anonymous methods

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM, John J Barton wrote: > The blog post http://yehudakatz.com/2012/01/10/javascript-needs-blocks/ makes > the case for blocks that act like functions when passed as arguments but > have loop-up rules more like nested blocks. > > Of course these are called 'block la

Anonymous methods

The blog post http://yehudakatz.com/2012/01/10/javascript-needs-blocks/ makes the case for blocks that act like functions when passed as arguments but have loop-up rules more like nested blocks. Of course these are called 'block lambdas', and I suggest that this is a problem. Given that very few