Please do not be angry at me and just close this proposal if it does not look interesting. It comes from my aesthetic dissatisfaction with the ->(x){ ... } literal anonymous function notation and from my amateurish interest in lambda calculus.
Here is a yet another syntax for literal anonymous functions (lambdas) that i propose:
f = {\ x => x*x }
f[1] # => 1
f[2] # => 4
It looks a bit like a hash on purpose: i think that a hash is a "function in extension" and a lambda is a "function in intension" (see, for example, in these notes). The backslash stands for "lambda", like in Haskell.
I have realized that the backslash may conflict with explicit line continuation. In that case, "almost any" symbol would work to distinguish a "lambda" from a hash. For example: {^ x => x*x }. (I've read that initially Church wrote x̂ -- "x-hat", and not λx.)
I think, my initial attempt was closer to lambda calculus notation (λx(x*x)) or (λx.x*x), to its modern variant x ⟼ x*x, to Haskell \x -> x*x, to Ruby block syntax {|x| x*x }, and to Ruby hash syntax { 2 => 2*2 }.
Another option: make it openly similar to the block syntax: {\|x| x*x } or {^|x| x*x }. Other options:
{<x> x*x }, {<> Time.now },
{<x>=> x*x },
{|x|=> x*x },
{|x|> x*x } be a proc and {|x|-> x*x } be a lambda.
Also, a double backslash would not conflict with a line break:
{\\ x => x*x }, {\\=> Time.now }.
Sorry, i cannot choose myself the best syntax, i just do not like ->(x){ ... } (strange placement of the "arrow", and it looks like a method call with a block, but the block parameters are mysteriously missing from the block and are found outside in parentheses, where arguments would be expected).
Updated by 
Updated by 
Updated by