[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Regarding the name 'pairs'
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:26:01 +0200
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
> 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 ;) ?