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

Hello,

 Maybe there is the case that the def is being squeezed into being more
meaningful for function definition than general definition. You have
very good reasoning for consistency. Other people have good ideas for
layout of code and if they come together would possibly work well. An
example:

=20

nameOfFunc =3D func (a, b) { a + b; }

=20

def nameOfFunc; func(a, b) { a + b; }; end

=20

def nameOfFunc(a, b); func { a + b; }; end

=20

Oh, and while typing these, func felt more natural to my fingers than
just fun. I think though that the f and n are the most important to
include and fun or fnc or other choices add mostly only flare, favor, or
resistance to settling the choice. Good day.

Yemi Bedu

P&R Fasteners
325 Pierce St
Somerset, NJ 08873
732-302-3600=20

________________________________

From: [e-mail]
[mailto:[e-mail]]=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:53 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on

=20


Hi-=20

Yukihiro Matsumoto <[e-mail]> wrote on 05/19/2008 10:23:29 AM:
> Hi,
>=20
> In message "Re: lambda, ->, haskell, and so on"
>     on Tue, 20 May 2008 01:49:04 +0900, [e-mail].
> com writes:
>=20
> |Second, there are a couple alternatives that we could use, leveraging

> |existing Ruby syntax:=20
> |
> |
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/16662
> |
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/16616
>=20
> So, you prefer lambda(x) {...} or x =3D> {...} over ->(x){...}, right?
> The latter (=3D>) conflicts with other part of Ruby syntax, namely =
hash
> literals, besides it complicates the language.
>=20
> I am not fond of "lambda" being keyword, because
>=20
>   * it changes meaning of the valid syntax ("lambda(a){p a}" is valid
>     in 1.8 with different semantics).
>   * it's long (6 letters).  considering the functional programming
>     trend in Ruby and other languages, we will see anonymous function
>     expression more often in the future.

There is also Ara's suggestion of using "def" for this purpose:=20

=20
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/16804=20

This would make Ruby more consistent with other languages:=20

   Ruby=20
      def name; "stuff"; end=20
      name =3D def() "stuff"; end=20
 =20
   Perl 5=20
      sub name { "stuff"; }=20
      $name =3D sub { "stuff"; }=20

   JavaScript=20
      function name(){ "stuff"; }=20
      name =3D function(){ "stuff"; }    =20

(Perl 6 is not really worth considering, since there's not much evidence

it will actually ship.)=20

> There could be a chance for the keyword like "fun" or "fn", but
> there's little hope.

Hopefully a solution can be found that the core team is happy with.
Personally,=20
I have seen many people in opposition to the use of "->" to mean lambda
in=20
this context.  I think a better alternative can be found.=20

Thanks for your consideration.=20

Nate Wiger=20
PlayStation=20