Better lambdas!!!!!!!!!!

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 10 September 2015 at 21:03:12 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 September 2015 at 20:56:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
> Grøstad wrote:
>> If there is a conflict you should use a regular lambda on the 
>> outer one?
>
> You could, but then doesn't that defeat the point a bit? My 
> example was off-the-cuff, but the point is that we already have 
> a fairly concise lambda syntax, and adding a new type will mean 
> that we have 4 different ways of expressing the same lambda 
> function. It's just not really worth it.

Yes, it is usually it is a bad idea to have many ways to do 
things. A numbered schema probably should only be used in an 
innermost scope as a single expression, so if you see "$1" you 
know the definition stops at the brackets.

Apropos one way of doing things:

http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/periodic/

:D