Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b

Paul Benedict pbenedict at
Mon Dec 14 04:22:13 PST 2009


>> PS: Are you introducing a new Jump type too?
> Since the underlying mechanism for implementing the transfer is a contract
> between the compiler and itself, it need not be specified.  BGGA's prototype
> uses the Jump type, which could be used to implement this specification as
> well, but it is not visible to Java programmers so it is not part of the
> specification.

I don't know how you can keep that constructor public without also
exposing the Jump type, but I guess it's there solely for
demonstrative purposes. Isn't the only operand to a Jump instruction
its offset? You could probably turn that constructor argument into an
int primitive unless you think more information is required.


More information about the closures-dev mailing list