Why Ruby?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-12-18 20:03, JRM wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:09:24 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> I would like a syntax that is a combination of D's lazy argument syntax
>> and C#'s lambda syntax. Basically like this:
>>
>> If the lambda doesn't take have any parameters then you can just put the
>> expression between then the parentheses in the function call:
>>
>> foo(writeln(3));
>>
>> If the lambda have one parameter then the following syntax is used:
>>
>> foo(x =>  x * x);
>>
>> If the lambda takes more then one parameter then you have to use
>> parentheses around the lambda parameters like this:
>>
>> foo((x, y) =>  x * y);
>>
>> Actually if it would be possible to skip the parentheses when the lambda
>> take more than one argument I would be more happy with that:
>>
>> foo(x, y =>  x * y);
>
> Why not define numbered placeholders to avoid the need for named
> arguments altogether.

Well, I can't think of all the syntaxes there possible can be :)

> foo(@1 * @2);
>
> //lowers to
>
> foo((arg1, arg2) { return arg1 * arg2; });
>
> It would be a fairly simple extension to the lazy argument syntax, and
> cover most of the typical uses for short lambdas.

That doesn't look too bad, maybe somewhat confusing with numbers in the 
names? And it might also be could to have a way to name the arguments 
yourself.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg