Anonymous function syntax

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-09-22 18:06, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/22/11 10:42 AM, pillsy wrote:
>> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s
>> article
>>> On 9/22/11 1:47 AM, Max Klyga wrote:
>>>> Actually Scala doesn't need type declarations in labmda literals. Most
>>>> of the time argument types are infered.
>>
>>> Already does. We're looking for a briefer syntax.
>>
>> What is the problem with just inferring the `return`, allowing you to
>> replace
>>
>> (a,b) { return a + b; }
>>
>> with
>>
>> (a, b) { a + b; }
>>
>> This seems competitive with the other syntaxes for brevity, but ISTR
>> there was some objection to doing things that
>> way.
>
> The objection is that it introduces a number of questions:
>
> 1. How about using that syntax in regular functions?
>
> 2. What if the lambda wants to actually evaluate the expression but
> return void?

I function/delegate that returns a value should be implicitly converted 
to a function/delegate that returns void.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg