Alternative syntax for closures

Neal Gafter neal at
Wed Jul 16 16:02:52 PDT 2008

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Rémi Forax <forax at> wrote:

>>    yes, the syntax is ambiguous but it can be solved by prefering the
>>    former
>>    than the later.
>> I don't think there is any reason to believe that the former is more
>> likely to be the programmer's intent than the latter.
> I don't agree, orphean blocks are rare.
> so I think it will not catch "the programmer's intent" but most of
> programmers intent.

I fundamentally disagree with designing a language based on an ambiguous

>> This example would fail at compile-time in BGGA for at least two reasons:
>> first, the exception E is thrown in run() but not declared.
> yes
>> Second, any attempt to pass a closure containing nonlocal transfers would
>> fail because this method only accepts restricted closures.
> "this method" => which method ??
> Please note that i don't  call submit() directly.

The method named "fork".

>    I don't see a difference with BGGA's functionality.
>> It looks like your proposal allows exactly the kind of code you're
>> concerned about, while BGGA forbids it.
> No, BGGA don't forbid it.

You just agreed that it does (your "yes" above).  If you think BGGA allows
it, can you please write the example in a form that would be allowed under
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the closures-dev mailing list