From: Jeremy McAnally <jeremymcanally@...>
Date: 2008-05-12T12:12:19+09:00
Subject: Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on

I like the idea of fun or fn simply because it doesn't lock a language
construct into a not-so-easily parsed character sequence.  It would
follow the lead of other features such as do-end as an alternative to
{}, the English alternatives to values like $_, etc.

Of course, whatever you decide, we'll like, but it'd make my brain
happier if I could have a word to represent that
keywor^H^H^Hconstruct.

--Jeremy

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on"
>    on Mon, 12 May 2008 11:25:38 +0900, Evan Phoenix <evan@fallingsnow.net> writes:
>
> |You'd be open to these?
>
> Personally, I am pretty well satisfied with current ->.  In addition,
> if both Ruby and Perl6 have it (in same syntax), it will soon have
> large mind share in the dynamic language "market".
>
> |I don't think function is too long at all, but
> |keyword length is a very, very personal thing. I'd love to see us at
> |least go with something like 'fun' instead of '->'. 'fn' is maybe too
> |short. How about 'lambda'? Too much worry about it conflicting with
> |existing code?
>
> I am not going to make "lambda" a keyword, for compatibility reason.
> I don't deny "fn" or "fun" instantly, just because I saw them in other
> languages.  But I expect little chance.
>
>                                                        matz.
>
>



-- 
http://jeremymcanally.com/
http://entp.com

Read my books:
Ruby in Practice (http://manning.com/mcanally/)
My free Ruby e-book (http://humblelittlerubybook.com/)

Or, my blogs:
http://mrneighborly.com
http://rubyinpractice.com