Virtual extension methods - syntax options
howard.lovatt at gmail.com
Fri Jun 11 22:18:14 PDT 2010
> While you were not personally consulted, variance and its syntax was
widely discussed both online and at conferences. > The syntax went through
a few iterations before settling on the current form. Your perception that
it was widely criticized
> at the time doesn't match my recollection.
I wasn't saying that I was consulted or even involved with variance; beyond
sending a couple of emails (or perhaps postings - I don't recall), one
suggesting that the use cases weren't that common and another saying that
the original +/- syntax was very unlikely Java. Other than those emails I
don't recall any personal involvement with variance. I took much less
interest, it was only later and with forums like this that I became active.
I could be wrong, but my feeling is that if there had been more involvement
from the community at large then variance could have been avoided. Hence my
decision to become involved. I think that there was much
less community involvement at the time of variance and most people took the
attitude that Sun were doing a good job, so leave them to it. Therefore
your recollection that variance wasn't widely criticized at the time is
almost certainly correct, but that was because few people were following
Presumably others feel that more community involvement is a good thing,
hence this forum.
On 12 June 2010 13:51, Neal Gafter <neal.gafter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com>
> > *Brian Goetz* brian.goetz at oracle.com
> >> The answer is neither: the syntax is not set in stone, but we strongly
> >> discourage ongoing discussions of syntax :)
> > Some sentiment along this line keeps on getting invoked. Since various
> > discussions keep on coming back to the syntax, the lambdas themselves,
> > extension methods, exception transparency, etc., I would suggest it is
> > important than you give it credit for. The syntax discussions can occur
> > parallel to the implementation discussions; in fact I would say that this
> > ideal, since if a workable syntax cannot be found there is no point in
> > continuing with the implementation.
> > To make this concrete; I would suggest that if the syntax of variance
> > cards) was throughly investigated before the implementation or in
> > with the implementation then we wouldn't have variance today (which the
> > wider community, and myself, think would be a good thing).
> While you were not personally consulted, variance and its syntax was widely
> discussed both online and at conferences. The syntax went through a few
> iterations before settling on the current form. Your perception that it was
> widely criticized at the time doesn't match my recollection.
More information about the lambda-dev