return-from-lambda viewed as dangerous, good alternatives

[Neal Gafter]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:39 AM,  <David.Moss at ubs.com> wrote:
>> Your proposed syntax isn't transparent.
>
> No, It is not. But it is transparent enough, and follows the rule of
> least surprise.

Actually, it isn't transparent at all.

You seem to be confusing the goal of transparency with elements needed
to achieve it (e.g. return from the enclosing method), and then
proposing a way to get the latter such that it doesn't satisfy the
requirements of the former.

If you're interested in further analysis, we can continue this
discussion on the closures-dev mailing list.