brian.goetz at oracle.com
Mon Aug 15 14:58:20 PDT 2011
>> Remi has it right here. You can say "all these languages let you do X
>> with closures", but all of those idioms have their roots in a 1950s
>> programming model where parallelism was science fiction.
> There are other ways of scaling your program over multiple cores without
> letting your objects be executed concurrently by more than one thread.
> In some of these models closures that mutate local vars make a lot of sense.
That's absolutely true. But the bar is not, and should not be, "we
should add a language feature if there is some model in which that
feature makes sense." The ability to point to examples where it would
be safe or sensible is a necessary, but not remotely sufficient,
condition to justify inclusion of a language feature.
The choice to exclude mutable local capture was not an oversight, but
the result of a reasoned tradeoff which includes cases like those you
More information about the lambda-dev