It’s basically dynamic scoping problem. Unlabeled break/continue may not be intended for closest dynamically enclosing break/cont-able loop
-
-
The arguments the experienced folks (in good faith, and honestly) used to kill block lambdas in JS apply to Ruby too.
-
I don't mean that
@BrendanEich or@awbjs were blubbing. I mean others were and persuaded them to live with these arguments to kill it. -
And honestly, this is how consensus works. I wasn't around yet, and vastly prefer arrows and no-block-lambdas to deadlock.
-
The arguments against block lambdas weren't persuasive to me, but between committee members blubbing and good enough arguments, yolo.
-
Just to be clear, I (a Smalltalk expert) convinced myself that block lambda with break/continue would be a bad for JS
-
Smalltalk's block-based control flow might have been seen as a diff, but ruby has traditional if/while/etc. Blocks bad for ruby?
-
Didn't mean to imply that I limited my investigation to what Smalltalk could do. See up thread pdf link
-
To be clear, I believe that you and
@BrendanEich arrived at this conclusion in good faith and after a great deal of thought. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.