Re: Discussion: Closures

On Feb 3, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Bob Lee wrote:

> foo = closure(bar) { print(bar); };
> foo(5);
>
> I'd still prefer something like this:
>
> foo = (bar) { print(bar); };
> foo(5);

Again, it looks good unless you have no args:

   foo=() { print(bar); };

   someMethod( () { print(bar); } );

But maybe that syntax would grow on me if I looked it for a while.
I don't know.


> Or even the ruby/groovy approach:
>
> foo = { bar | print(bar); };
> foo(5);

That's much closer to the original proposal:

foo = callable( bar, print(bar); };
foo(5);

I'm not sure why they bothered with the '|' syntax... it's probably 
necessary because of some other ambiguity in the language.  We wouldn't 
suffer from that due to the explicit (proposed) method call syntax.


Pat



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl