[#16611] lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

This is one of those e-mails that I know from the start to be futile,

148 messages 2008/05/01
[#16661] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/05/05

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:26:47PM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#16662] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/05

Hi --

[#16663] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — ts <decoux@...> 2008/05/05

David A. Black wrote:

[#16664] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/05

Hi --

[#16682] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — ara howard <ara.t.howard@...> 2008/05/08

[#16684] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Michael Neumann <mneumann@...> 2008/05/08

ara howard wrote:

[#16687] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/08

Hi --

[#16691] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...> 2008/05/08

[#16692] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/08

Hi --

[#16695] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "ara.t.howard" <ara.t.howard@...> 2008/05/08

[#16705] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2008/05/11

Not to throw the whole thread into a tizzy again, but why again is:

[#16708] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/05/11

Hi,

[#16720] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/11

Hi,

[#16721] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/12

Hi --

[#16722] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/12

Hi,

[#16723] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2008/05/12

[#16724] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/12

Hi,

[#16726] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Nathan Weizenbaum <nex342@...> 2008/05/12

What about "fn" or "fun", for "function"?

[#16728] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/12

Hi,

[#16731] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Evan Phoenix <evan@...> 2008/05/12

[#16732] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/12

Hi,

[#16759] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/13

Hi --

[#16766] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/14

Hi,

[#16784] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2008/05/18

Hi --

[#16795] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Nate_Wiger@... 2008/05/19

On Wed, 14 May 2008, David A. Black wrote:

[#16797] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/19

Hi,

[#16798] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Christopher Gill" <gilltots@...> 2008/05/19

how about an uppercase lambda (instead of the usual lowercase one)

[#16802] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Suraj N. Kurapati" <sunaku@...> 2008/05/20

Christopher Gill wrote:

[#16843] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Suraj N. Kurapati" <sunaku@...> 2008/05/22

Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:

[#16846] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2008/05/22

[#16854] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rados=B3aw_Bu=B3at?=" <radek.bulat@...> 2008/05/22

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Berger, Daniel <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:

[#16857] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@...> 2008/05/23

Even though I see the usefulness, that's just ugly.

[#16874] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — Nate_Wiger@... 2008/05/23

"Jeremy McAnally" <jeremymcanally@gmail.com> wrote on 05/22/2008 05:35:01

[#16875] Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2008/05/23

2008/5/23 <Nate_Wiger@playstation.sony.com>:

[#16886] lambda with normal block syntax — "Eric Mahurin" <eric.mahurin@...>

This patch is an independent but related one to my previous one. It can be

64 messages 2008/05/25
[#16895] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16900] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — "Eric Mahurin" <eric.mahurin@...> 2008/05/26

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>

[#16901] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16902] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — "Suraj N. Kurapati" <sunaku@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16903] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16904] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/26

[#16905] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16907] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/26

[#16912] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/05/26

Hi,

[#16920] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/26

If I may, here are two entries from the ChangeLog file:

[#16922] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/26

[#16927] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/26

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#16928] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/26

[#16929] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/26

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#16931] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/05/27

[#16946] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/27

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#16947] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — James Gray <james@...> 2008/05/27

On May 27, 2008, at 12:33 PM, David Flanagan wrote:

[#16949] Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/05/27

James Gray wrote:

Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on

From: Evan Phoenix <evan@...>
Date: 2008-05-11 06:14:54 UTC
List: ruby-core #16705
Not to throw the whole thread into a tizzy again, but why again is:

  ->(a,b) { }   # stabby proc

better than

   def(a,b) { } # anonymous def

Seems like there has been continual talk of the positions of ->, but  
none (I may have missed it) on it existing at all (though, I'm quite  
aware of them existing before).

IMHO, the anonymous def syntax is consistent, easy to type, and looks  
nice.

  - Evan


On May 8, 2008, at 11:18 AM, ara.t.howard wrote:

>
> On May 8, 2008, at 10:04 AM, David A. Black wrote:
>> Because if the arrow means "I'm pointing", then the {} should be a
>> hash
>
>
>
> p :that => 'makes absolutely zero sense to me?'
>
> p :arrows => 'point to rhs, not hashes'
>
> m{ }
>
> m = {}
>
> m = %r{}
>
> m = %{}
>
> m = ->{}
>
> so i don't see the fact that the char or two before a {} meaning is  
> 'must be a hash' and standing on very firm ground.
>
>
> anyhow - i'm in the minority so i'll bow out.  having made my  
> argument that ruby is prettier than most so to heck with being like  
> the 'others' (sorry dave ;-)).
>
> a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
> --
> we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being  
> better. simply reflect on that.
> h.h. the 14th dalai lama
>
>
>
>


In This Thread