transparent lambda

Neal Gafter neal at
Mon Dec 28 09:18:48 PST 2009

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at>wrote:

> Making labelling a requirement to use 'yield' certainly seems too awkward,
> but perhaps defining a non-labelled yield as transferring control from the
> 'outermost' lambda (ie. transparent semantics for yield by default as well)
> would combine the desired preservation of semantics with 'nice' syntactic
> for the '9 out of 10' cases (because it's probably not even nested).

I can't tell if you're joking or not.  That would mean that apparently
simple code such as this

*#(){ yield 3; }*

could not be understood without looking at all of the enclosing context.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the closures-dev mailing list