Re: LAMBDA syntax counter-proposal

[Guy.Steele at CMU-10A]

Well, one might argue that supplied-p parameters are only pseudo-parameters
or meta-parameters, but on the whole your point is well taken.  Instead,
I'll merely suggest that the correspondence between the parameter list
and a list of the arguments is "simple and natural".

You are also quite correct that a syntax shouldn't be designed to make
the compiler twelve lines shorter.  However, I sincerely believe with
at least 60% of my brain that the proposed syntax actually is at least as
convenient for humans as the current &-syntax.

It is certainly true that the proposal does not lend itself to extension.
Recall rule [5] of the proposal: "That's all."  The proposal was meant
as an example at one extreme of the design spectrum; it provides the
minimal capability in a simple way, and is not intended ever to be
extended.  Now maybe that is not the design philosophy we want, and 20%
of my brain agrees (20% is still undecided), but that's another story.

As for call-by-keyword syntax, I am presently somewhat against putting
that into the base language.  However, I would be glad to have my mind
changed by a super-winning proposal.  (So far I haven't seen a good proposal
which discusses the syntax of calls thoroughly and also suggests feasible
implementation mechanisms.)
--Guy