Anonymous function syntax

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-09-24 06:51, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, September 23, 2011 23:42:52 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 9/23/11 8:03 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:54:55 +0200, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>  wrote:
>>> I want to add some points against introducing this particular syntax.
>>>
>>> 1. Foremost using '=>' is unfamiliar. Comming from C++ or Java you
>>> really have to learn reading it.
>>> If you weighted the lambda syntaxes with the tiobe factor, arrows would
>>> be a minority.
>>
>> Well the C++2011 lambda syntax is quite foreign for C++ users, too.
>
> And Andrei's suggested syntax is very similar to C#'s lambda syntax, so it
> _is_ a syntax familiar to some of the programmers who use a major language
> derived from C++. It's certainly going to be more familiar than the syntax of
> any of the functional languages out there.

Scala uses the same syntax as well.

> My personal take on it is that if we want more compact lambdas, Andrei's
> proposal gets them about as compact as they can be, and it's similar to C#
> rather than one of the functional languages, so it's more likely to be
> familiar to more D programmers (based on the assumption that D programmers are
> more likely to have programmed in C# than any of the functional languages, or
> at least that D programmers are more likely to be intimately familiar with C#
> than any of the functional languages). So, it's probably the best that we're
> going to get for a compact lambda syntax. The only question is whether we
> really want to add a more compact lambda syntax, and I think that there's
> enough desire for it that we do.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg