Syntax decision

[Steven Simpson]

On 28/09/11 16:46, Brian Goetz wrote:
> With the current approach, there is only one special case:
>  - All lambdas consist of paren-args-paren-arrow-body
>  - For the special case of unary, type-inferred lambdas, you can omit 
> the parens:  x -> x+1
>
> Turning that into "you *must* omit the parens" means that all users, 
> even those who don't care about the nilary form, must learn another rule.

"must omit"?  I don't see where either of us have suggested that.

Cheers!