Re: [RFC]

> On Feb 13, 2020, at 5:26 PM, Dik Takken <d.h.j.takken@freedom.nl> wrote: > > On 13-02-2020 19:19, Mike Schinkel wrote: >> function foo{} >> >> foo::function — Returns name of function >> foo::fn — Returns closure for function >> >> Since using fn creates anonymous function closures it kinda >> makes sense that ::fn would return a closure. > > That is somewhat confusing in my opinion, the two class constants are > too similar. I would rather prefer: > > foo::function — Returns name of function > foo::closure — Returns closure for function > > Regards, > Dik Takken I actually prefer foo::closure over foo::fn though either would be fine with me, especially if it means getting the feature vs. not getting the feature. The reason I proposed ::fn was because I trying to suggest something that I though Larry Garfield would appreciate given his recent comment[1] in response to you where he said: "Analysis: I stand by my earlier statement that ::function is just too damned long for this funtionality. Not when already reserved shorter options exist. ::fn" -Mike [1] https://externals.io/message/108459#108542