transparent lambda

Neal Gafter neal at
Mon Dec 28 12:18:24 PST 2009

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at>wrote:

> Hmm.  Wouldn't it only *break* TCP if it were also valid in a nested lambda
> but with a different semantic meaning, or if there were no corresponding
> form for when the statement is wrapped in a lambda?

I'd say "syntax error" is a pretty serious breakage.  To put it another way,
the correspondence principle applied to lambda expressions says the meaning
of a (nested) expression should not change when wrapped in a lambda.
Changing the meaning from "allowed" to "not allowed" is therefore not

Any expression form that has subexpressions should be capable of being

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

More information about the closures-dev mailing list