I kind of hope the Scala guys do that, actually. There is too many ways to do certain things. "list.map(_+2)" is legal while "list.map((_+2)+3)" is not. Instead, you need to use an anonymous function like this: "list.map(x => (x+2)+3)". Why is the _-style even legal if it's so inflexible? Why not force functions all the time? Why have two ways to do the same simple thing?
The _ style is legal because it's really useful. Most of the time you're mapping with small functions, and the extra few characters really add up - more than enough to be worth the extra learning.
It would also be nice if "<-" were replaced with "in". It would just be more helpful and easier to remember. Special signs should be avoided at every opportunity
Comments
I kind of hope the Scala guys do that, actually. There is too many ways to do certain things. "list.map(_+2)" is legal while "list.map((_+2)+3)" is not. Instead, you need to use an anonymous function like this: "list.map(x => (x+2)+3)". Why is the _-style even legal if it's so inflexible? Why not force functions all the time? Why have two ways to do the same simple thing?
The _ style is legal because it's really useful. Most of the time you're mapping with small functions, and the extra few characters really add up - more than enough to be worth the extra learning.
It would also be nice if "<-" were replaced with "in". It would just be more helpful and easier to remember. Special signs should be avoided at every opportunity