Transparancy

[Paul Benedict]

Here's my -1 vote on the yield.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Stephen Colebourne
<scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:
> The latest (6 July) lambda document has big changes to the
> "transparancy" features.
>
> - this is still scoped to the lambda
> - Outer.this is used for lexical scoping
> - return is dropped
> - yield is added
>
> The problem with the approach is that it is schizophrenic. The
> previous approach with "this" and "return" had a certain consistency
> such that it was the same as an inner class. Since this proposal is
> *more* like CICE (simplified inner classes), one would have expected
> to have seen both "this and "return" remain. Instead "yield" appears
> completely at random.
>
> Firstly, the document doesn't really give us enough info on "yield" to
> be completely clear, but it sounds like "return" but in a lambda. But
> WHY?
> - it hasn't made the code more transparent or readable, just different
> - its a context keyword, which has negative implications in parsing
> and interactions with variables
> - it doesn't fit the "simpler inner class" mental model
>
> As is well known, I believe strongly that 'this' should be lexically
> scoped. Its just so much the standard for closures in other languages
> that IMO it is quite amazing that anything else is actually being
> considered.
>
> The only mental model that would justify lambda-scoped 'this' is if
> the project were renamed to "shorter syntax for inner classes" (or
> CICE) and the syntax adjusted to be something obviously based on inner
> classes (ie. just adopt the CICE proposal!!!)
>
> I also strongly oppose the 'yield' keyword. It is an unecessary
> addition to the language when the 'return' keyword performs a
> similarly suitable role.
>
> The only justification for not using 'return' is a desire to use it
> later for long-returns. In the original closure debates I showed many
> cases why this was a generally bad idea, as it introduces new
> exceptions at the core language level and simply isn't what most users
> expect. I thought I had sufficiently proven the case of short-returns
> during that debate when the original straw-man was produced. Do I
> really have to demonstrate it again?
>
> The new syntax is an offshoot of this change I suspect, but as I've
> indicated its the wrong offshoot. The proposal is now a CICE-like
> proposal, but in the body of BGGA. This combination makes no
> conceptual sense I'm afraid, and is frankly rather a frankenstein
> monster.
>
> Stephen
>
>