Mikael Grev grev at
Wed Jul 7 11:59:01 PDT 2010


Either you read it wrong or, maybe more probable, my "swedish" english isn't tuned enough to express what I meant. I actually meant to think about the future, but don't make the present bad just to keep an option for a (IMO) bad solution open in the future.

What I mean is:

New things (long returns) should look and feel new. Things that works as before should look the same.

So "return" should be a local return. As Neal mentioned just now that isn't maybe 100% accurate for a language expert, but I, and I think must developers, will see the body of the lambda as a method body and expect the return from it to just leave that body. Hence a simple "return" will do what's expected and yield would just confuse.


On Jul 7, 2010, at 20:42 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:

>> I think it is a bit backwards to introduce something new for a current thing to keep an option to have something current mean something new in the future.
> Seriously?  It would be outright incompetence for a language steward to *not* consider what might happen in the future.
> But your point is taken.  In future, perhaps I should not be sharing my thoughts on the future direction of the language with the public, because its obviously too confusing.

More information about the lambda-dev mailing list