Re: [RFC]Discuss] Syntax for Arrow Functions

On 23 June 2017 19:43:19 BST, Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk> wrote: >Suffice it to say, I understand your arguments and your point of view, >I >just don't agree with it Indeed, as I say, different people want different things from this proposal, and no syntax is going to suit all of them. I think this is important, because it means the choice of syntax can never fully be separated from the choice of feature set. >I'm a big non-believer in syntax alternatives for the same >language-features for various use-cases I have a lot of sympathy for this view, and it tempts me to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - if the existing syntax covers all scenarios, why bother with a new one at all. I understand that your aim would be to replace the existing syntax, and perhaps in the distant future remove it altogether. However, I would point out that a huge number of programming constructs can be considered special cases of others. For instance, every while loop can be replaced with if and goto, but not every combination of if and goto can be turned into a while loop; so at one logical extreme, we should remove while loops from the language as redundant syntax for one special case. Like most such decisions, it's a question of where you draw the line: in this case, whether you think single-expression closures are a sufficiently common and distinctive case that they deserve their own syntax. Evidently, you think they are not; I have been reasonably convinced by examples people have shown that they are. Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]