Transparancy

[Mikael Grev]

Yeah, yield is not a good solution. I don't think using return will confuse anyone except maybe the first time.

-1 for yield.

Basically, and a bit boring maybe, +1 for all of Stephen's comments and reasons below.

Cheers,
Mikael Grev

On Jul 7, 2010, at 20:19 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:

> 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
>> 
>>