Re: Regarding the name 'pairs'

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
<lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> One important reason for not having "set:values" is that it'd be sugar
> for "function (...) return set:values(...) end" and this would imply
> the creation of a hidden closure.

Yes, it did feel like an incompatible proposal.

So, is there some support for Mark Hamburg's closure sugar in Rio ;) ?

steve d.