Re: [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 19 June 2017 21:22:53 BST, Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk> wrote: >So what's on the table is a syntax-improved but feature-crippled >variant of >closures, not an all-round replacement? I haven't the time right now to dig out my summary from the mail archives, but this is one of the fundamental disagreements / misunderstandings that made discussion difficult the first time: different people want very different things from this feature, leading to conflicting views on whether certain things are advantages or disadvantages. For me (and I am not alone), this feature is NOT a new syntax for closures. It is a new TYPE of closure, with new semantics - automatically capturing variables - for a specific use case. Personally, I am strongly opposed to any multi-line version of it, because I don't want the fundamental scoping rules of the language changed except for the specific case of simple lambda expressions. If what you are looking for is a replacement syntax for existing closures, you will have a completely different set of priorities. That doesn't make either of us wrong, but it does mean we're going to find it very hard to agree on a syntax and feature set. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]