Syntax poll, take 2
neal at gafter.com
Mon Jun 13 16:26:41 PDT 2011
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
> Which brings us full circle to the issue of control abstraction, which
> was a central feature of BGGA.
> The status on this:
> - Completely out of scope for Java 8. (Don't bother lobbying.)
> - However, we not hostile to this idea, and (all things being equal)
> it does seem desirable to leave the door open to this in the future, if
> that can be done without sacrificing too much. (This is a point in
> favor of the BGGA syntax.)
I don't think your BGGA-like syntax is much better than any of the
alternatives for the purposes of control abstraction unless you make the
return statement transparent, which project Lambda is clearly not doing.
BGGA has a separate syntax for control invocations, and that can be done no
matter what the syntax is for a lambda expression.
More information about the lambda-dev