return-from-lambda viewed as dangerous, good alternatives

[Neal Gafter]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Alex Buckley <Alex.Buckley at sun.com> wrote:
> Neal Gafter wrote:
>>
>> The point of intersection is checking that Sun's Project Lambda does
>> not preclude transparency.  That discussion is appropriate here, no?
>
> John Rose's outstanding initial mail did that. It and the immediate
> follow-ups gave others of us at Sun a lot to think about. I'm not sure it's
> necessary to rehash restricted v. unrestricted BGGA semantics, which is what
> separating "blocks" from "closures" effectively did up-thread.

My question is about further evaluation of Project Lambda as it
evolves with respect to whether or not and how it might preclude
transparency.  I would expect that to be appropriate here, as such
discussion elsewhere is unlikely to have the required impact.