closures after all?
markmahieu at googlemail.com
Fri Nov 20 11:57:48 PST 2009
I thought that Neal's post was applicable to ARM + extension methods,
not just closures + extension methods.
Either way, I agree that we could do with hearing more detail on the
form extension methods might take before persuing this much further.
On 20 Nov 2009, at 19:49, Bob Lee <crazybob at crazybob.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>> As you are well aware, there is controvery about which types
>> matter. A
>> based on extension methods can be used to support all of the types
>> that we
>> discussed, not just the ones you consider to matter.
> Manual resource cleanup is very common and difficult to get right,
> especially when > 1 resources are involved. Out of the 110 places
> where the
> otherwise exemplary JDK code opens and closes resources, 2/3rds can
> Not one suppresses exceptions in what I think is the proper fashion
> Users need a first class solution. ARM blocks rise to that level. My
> intuition is that a closures + extension methods approach will not,
> but I
> haven't seen either of those proposals yet. There isn't much point in
> arguing about it until I do.
>  http://crazybobs-talks.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/out/foj.pdf
More information about the coin-dev