Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b
neal at gafter.com
Mon Dec 14 07:16:32 PST 2009
Yes, that's a good point. Either Jump has to be public or hidden in the
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org> wrote:
> >> PS: Are you introducing a new Jump type too?
> > Since the underlying mechanism for implementing the transfer is a
> > between the compiler and itself, it need not be specified. BGGA's
> > uses the Jump type, which could be used to implement this specification
> > 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the closures-dev