Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b
markmahieu at googlemail.com
Wed Dec 16 11:13:10 PST 2009
Aha, yes I'm with you now. I'd interpreted that quite differently.
Thanks for the explanation.
On 16 Dec 2009, at 15:56, Neal Gafter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2009, at 03:21, Neal Gafter wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Bit of a long shot this, but is there any value in revisiting the old idea of using a different syntax for yielding a value from a lambda?
>> That doesn't work out so well, for reasons discussed in gory detail here: <http://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/08/tennents-correspondence-principle-and.html>.
> OK, although I must admit I'm struggling to see how it doesn't also apply to the use of 'return' in statement lambdas.
> It does, which is why another lambda form is required that is transparent. In the current spec that is the expression lambda.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the closures-dev