Comments on the straw man...

Stefan Schulz schulz at
Sat Dec 12 14:43:49 PST 2009

Just some additional cents ...

I'm not quite sure, what to make of the strawman proposal. To me, it 
rather looks like a quickly sketched technical wishlist for lambda 
expressions, especially due to the tutorial style (but I think, that's 
somehow what Mark mentions in the first paragraphs).

As Neal pointed out, there is lots of work to be done before it could be 
taken as a serious proposal, and I don't think the strawman being 
appropriate in its current state to do this by a rather large group of 
people as are on this mailing list, but a reduced number of language and 
closure/lambda experts (not implying that I would be qualified as such 
an expert). The slightly heated discussion on one of the very most 
optional parts "extension methods" IMHO shows the problem in not having 
a mature base for common refinement.

I ask myself, if it would be wiser to pick up the latest version of CfJ 
and adopt it to the ideas as written down by Mark. For the start, I 
would even put the enhanced syntax for method-like invocation of 
function types into the optional section. It seems, too many thoughts 
are going into the beauty of syntax before having the base done right.


More information about the lambda-dev mailing list