Hi!
Sorry for the slow response, I’ve been on holiday.
On 8 Aug 2014, at 01:32, Josh Watzman wrote:
> The RFC goes a long way to fixing this, but one important place it misses is
> with function references to private and protected methods. The crux of the
> issue is that allowing an unbound c
On 10 August 2014 19:20:09 GMT+01:00, Andrea Faulds wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Sorry for the slow response, I’ve been on holiday.
>
>On 8 Aug 2014, at 01:32, Josh Watzman wrote:
>
>> The RFC goes a long way to fixing this, but one important place it
>misses is with function references to private and protecte
On 10 Aug 2014, at 22:00, Rowan Collins wrote:
> You're rather pre-supposing the proposed syntax there, and letting it lead
> the semantics rather than vice versa. The point is it would be useful to
> allow creation of a pre-bound closure based on an existing method, so it
> would be good if
