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:

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

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

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

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 =

From: Nate_Wiger@playstation.sony.com [mailto:Nate_Wiger@playstation.sony.com] =
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, = 2008 2:53 PM
To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
Subject: Re: lambda, = ->, haskell, and so on

Hi-

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote on 05/19/2008 10:23:29 = AM:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: lambda, ->, = haskell, and so on"
> on Tue, 20 May 2008 = 01:49:04 +0900, Nate_Wiger@playstation.sony.
> com writes:
>
> |Second, there are a couple = alternatives that we could use, leveraging
> |existing Ruby syntax: =
> |
> | 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
>
> 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.
>
> I am not fond of "lambda" = being keyword, because
>
> * 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:

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

This would make Ruby more consistent with other languages:

Ruby
def name; "stuff"; end
name =3D def() "stuff"; end =

Perl 5
sub name { "stuff"; }
$name =3D sub { "stuff"; } =

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

(Perl 6 is not really worth considering, since there's not much = evidence
it will actually ship.)

> 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,
I have seen many people in opposition to the use of "->" to mean lambda = in
this context. I think a better alternative can be = found.

Thanks for your consideration.

Nate Wiger
PlayStation