neal at gafter.com
Fri Jan 8 08:52:14 PST 2010
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at marand.si> wrote:
> I have a feeling that this might be it (provided that it is acceptable).
> With this we can satisfy both camps:
It's not too bad, but I have two concerns.
First, I think the ambiguities around the trinary expression are a little
hairy. Second, when put together with expression lambdas, it is a little
I didn't do anything like this in CfJ 0.6b, because it isn't really so bad
just doing it yourself. Is there really a camp clamoring for a lambda form
that is both transparent and which has an early exit?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the closures-dev