Comments on the straw man...

[Stefan Schulz]

Just some additional cents ...

I'm not quite sure, what to make of the strawman proposal. To me, it 
rather looks like a quickly sketched technical wishlist for lambda 
expressions, especially due to the tutorial style (but I think, that's 
somehow what Mark mentions in the first paragraphs).

As Neal pointed out, there is lots of work to be done before it could be 
taken as a serious proposal, and I don't think the strawman being 
appropriate in its current state to do this by a rather large group of 
people as are on this mailing list, but a reduced number of language and 
closure/lambda experts (not implying that I would be qualified as such 
an expert). The slightly heated discussion on one of the very most 
optional parts "extension methods" IMHO shows the problem in not having 
a mature base for common refinement.

I ask myself, if it would be wiser to pick up the latest version of CfJ 
and adopt it to the ideas as written down by Mark. For the start, I 
would even put the enhanced syntax for method-like invocation of 
function types into the optional section. It seems, too many thoughts 
are going into the beauty of syntax before having the base done right.

Stefan