Comments on the straw man...
scolebourne at joda.org
Sat Dec 12 16:17:27 PST 2009
Stefan Schulz wrote:
> I'm not quite sure, what to make of the strawman proposal. To me, it
> rather looks like a quickly sketched technical wishlist for lambda
> expressions, especially due to the tutorial style (but I think, that's
> somehow what Mark mentions in the first paragraphs).
> As Neal pointed out, there is lots of work to be done before it could be
> taken as a serious proposal, and I don't think the strawman being
> appropriate in its current state to do this by a rather large group of
> people as are on this mailing list, but a reduced number of language and
> closure/lambda experts (not implying that I would be qualified as such
> an expert). The slightly heated discussion on one of the very most
> optional parts "extension methods" IMHO shows the problem in not having
> a mature base for common refinement.
> I ask myself, if it would be wiser to pick up the latest version of CfJ
> and adopt it to the ideas as written down by Mark. For the start, I
> would even put the enhanced syntax for method-like invocation of
> function types into the optional section. It seems, too many thoughts
> are going into the beauty of syntax before having the base done right.
I'd like to effectively second this. Neal's work in CFJ 0.6a (which is
in many respects a merger of BGGA and FCM) is the only logical place to
start this work. It has had all the difficult issues thought through,
and has a prototype that is isn't a million miles away.
In fact, I'd go further and say that I struggle to see what the
difference is between the concepts in the strawman and the real detail
in CFJ (apart from extension methods, which warrant a separate debate).
Mark, we have limited time to get this into JDK 7 - is NIH really the
right approach here?
More information about the lambda-dev