4 ms·
> better lambda syntax What do you mean by better lambda syntax? Is there something that you feel isn't adequate in the current syntax?
by Ivoah 9y ago
> better lambda syntax
What do you mean by better lambda syntax? Is there something that you feel isn't adequate in the current syntax?
- bastawhiz 9y agoIt's a bit verbose. A lambda with a single one letter param takes ten characters to write: `lambda x: `. In JS, it's 5: `x => `. Ruby blocks take sevenish: `{|x| }`. Six in haskell.
- tome 9y agoHow did you get six for Haskell? I get five if you require a space at the end \x->
- bastawhiz 9y agoI was counting a space after the x.
- Pxtl 9y agoAlso, still no support for multi-line lambdas is there?
- rollcat 9y agoMulti-line lambdas will never happen. Lambdas are expressions. "Multi-line" means statements. There is no sane way you could embed statements into an expression with whitespace-based block syntax.
- Pxtl 9y agoFine, not technically lambdas, but still: function bodies declared inline in function calls. This provides great flexibility in higher-order functions. > There is no sane way you could embed statements into an expression with whitespace-based block syntax. Ruby does it. Of course, Ruby has a limitation that a function call may only have one "block", but still - Ruby blocks are statements embedded into an expression in a whitespace-based syntax.
- pseudalopex 9y agoRuby has explicit syntax to end groups of statements. Python is equally powerful when it comes to higher-order functions; it just enforces a flatter, more explicit style.