Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Ruby's model? I realize this is significant change, and not backwards
> compatible.
> 
> I am suggesting lamda as true "define anonymous method". Since 'lambda'
> means 'function' I do not think it neccesitates a meaning of 'object'.
> You are playing with words. It is not unreasonable to require a
> "dereference" to get a 1st class object --just as we do with methods.
> And it has powerful ploymorphic usecase.

What I mean is, you're breaking the model of a lambda as a "first class
function" as opposed to an "anonymous method". In ruby, procs are
objects, methods are not. You're also breaking the definition of
'lambda' as used virtually everywhere. If this does happen, I hope it's
with a keyword other than lambda.

martin