On 2/4/12 5:55 PM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
Anyway, I am happy to update my patch to make `_` be currying (as both
you and graydon preferred).
I think I spoke too soon about being happy. =)
I've been thinking about the patch some more and I am not sure how I
feel about `_` being currying. This
On 2/6/2012 10:07 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
I've been thinking about the patch some more and I am not sure how I
feel about `_` being currying. This is not because I'm opposed to a
currying semantics as opposed to a closure semantics—though I'm not sure
that it's really better—but because I
First, I like this a lot. I think applying it to operators as well is
definitely a good thing. I don't feel strongly about these closures
needing to copy the bound values. If you consider them a syntax for
currying, one would expect them to copy, but you could also look at
them as a shorthand for
On 2/4/12 1:50 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
Here, assuming I understand your proposal correctly, the rule is
relatively simple: where there's an underscore, the lambda is always
positioned before the nearest parent PrimaryExpression. But with
operators, the rules become more complex. I don't know
