4 messages in net.java.openjdk.closures-devRe: Syntax Again| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Vladimir Kirichenko | Feb 10, 2010 5:55 am | |
| Fredrik Öhrström | Feb 10, 2010 6:40 am | |
| Rémi Forax | Feb 10, 2010 6:59 am | |
| Vladimir Kirichenko | Feb 10, 2010 7:20 am |
| Subject: | Re: Syntax Again | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Fredrik Öhrström (fred...@oracle.com) | |
| Date: | Feb 10, 2010 6:40:44 am | |
| List: | net.java.openjdk.closures-dev | |
Somehow I think that no official looking body has explicitly rejected the BGGA syntax. It has more sort of been left in limbo.
Personally I consider it important to easily discern between a Type and a piece of code. Thus the creation of a closure is excellent in the BGGA proposal, and it looks like a bit of code, which is perfect since an important purpose of BGGA is control abstraction.
However the type holding on to the closure also looks like a piece of code, this is not so good. Integers (1234) do not look like "int". The closure type need not look like the actual closure creation body.
//Fredrik
Vladimir Kirichenko skrev:
Hi, All
I have a question: why BGGA 0.5 syntax was rejected in favor of CLang-like syntax that causes so lots of problems?
It much more elegant for function type definition
#(#int(String)(throws IOException)) (String)(throws SQLException)
vs
{String => {String => int throws IOException} throws SQLException}
The second one much more elegant and does not introduce #.