transparent lambda

Neal Gafter neal at
Mon Dec 28 10:18:31 PST 2009

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at>wrote:

> It's a bit of a cheat regarding Tennent's C.P, in that your example could
> not be refactored to equivalent code simply by wrapping the 'yield' in a
> (nested) lambda and invoking it - a label would have to be added to make it
> valid.

That was my point: the existence of an unlabelled yield statement breaks
TCP.  If the yield statement is labelled, this problem does not occur.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the closures-dev mailing list