Why Ruby?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-12-18 23:41, Walter Bright wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> foo(x, y => x * y);
>
> The problem with all these is what is the difference between:
>
> { x * y }
> { x * y; } <== note the ;
> { return x * y; }

I would say there is no difference. The delegeate would be inferred to 
have the same type as the function requires.

Take this for example, "foo" is declared like this:

void foo (int delegate (int x, int y) dg);

And called like this:

foo(x, y => x * y);

Then the delegate would be inferred to be:

int delegate (int, int)

If you add a semicolon or a return in the lambda body it would be 
inferred to the same type.

> The C++ lambda group had the same discussions.
>
> It may not seem like much when the code is trivial, but when it gets
> more complex, having 2 or 3 different syntaxes for function bodies seems
> like a confusing disaster in the making.

The point is to only use the syntax when the code is trivial, like in 
the above example.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg