Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b

Neal Gafter neal at
Mon Dec 14 22:54:21 PST 2009

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at> wrote:

> I think the current spec is a worthwhile simplification versus BGGA, but
> I'd be happy to entertain further revisions.  Maybe you like BGGA's lambda
> syntax for these "blocks" ?

Incidentally, if we do that then we don't need block expressions, and we can
use a slightly different lambda conversion that allows boxing and unboxing
when matching lambda parameters to the interface function (Josh Bloch
expressed his preference for that in "Closures Controversy," slide 48).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the closures-dev mailing list