Comments on the straw man...

Alex Blewitt alex.blewitt at gmail.com
Thu Dec 17 06:37:21 PST 2009


On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:51, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> 2009/12/16 Mark Reinhold <mr at sun.com>:
>> I committed
>> publicly to initiate an open discussion, and publishing the straw-man
>> proposal seemed the best way to do that.
>> I could, alternatively, have waited and posted a more-complete  
>> proposal,
>
> Personally, I would have preferred to see a statement of requirements
> - "lambda-blocks will have local returns", "this keyword will be
> lexically scoped", "function types are required", "short syntax",
> "method references are desirable". Instead, we are effectively
> extracting requirements from the straw-man.

Agreed - a list of requirements would enable us to better target what  
the resultant structure is. Furthermore, it will then allow us to all  
agree on what the mandatory requirements are (i.e. those which if the  
project doesn't deliver, it has failed), what the highly desirable  
ones are (like automatic SAM conversion), right down to the wouldn't- 
it-be-good-if requirements (like extension methods, exception  
support). I think our discussions are touching on some of these  
points, but we should really consider ordering them relative to each  
other and then start with a solution that meets all the mandatory ones  
and then build up from there.

Alex


More information about the lambda-dev mailing list