transparent lambda

[Mark Mahieu]

On 28 Dec 2009, at 20:18, Neal Gafter wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hmm.  Wouldn't it only *break* TCP if it were also valid in a nested lambda but with a different semantic meaning, or if there were no corresponding form for when the statement is wrapped in a lambda?
> 
> I'd say "syntax error" is a pretty serious breakage.  To put it another way, the correspondence principle applied to lambda expressions says the meaning of a (nested) expression should not change when wrapped in a lambda.  Changing the meaning from "allowed" to "not allowed" is therefore not transparent.
> 
> Any expression form that has subexpressions should be capable of being nested.
> 
> Cheers,
> Neal
> 

I see - that certainly clears things up.  I should probably revisit Tennent's text with a stricter interpretation of 'equivalent', 'analogous mechanism' etc :)

Thanks for your patience.

Mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20091228/529cd056/attachment.html