happy new year!
John.Rose at Sun.COM
Tue Jan 20 02:39:32 PST 2009
On Jan 20, 2009, at 2:28 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> MethodHandle supports was almost ready before John changes the
> format of
> (to add varargs bits)
Aghh! Stub out the varargs bits if you want; after using them a
little I'm beginning to think they are not worth the trouble. Sorry
for the thrash.
The key insight, I think, is that method handles are pure JVM-level
behavior, without attached intentions like "I have an optional
argument" or "I am a field setter"; that sort of information properly
belongs in the (mangled) invocation name of invokedynamic, not wedged
into the method handle or its type. The varargs bit in MethodType,
although temptingly connected to the varargs bit in JVM methods,
doesn't really help things fit together. In particular, there is no
way (that I can see) to issue a true varargs call from bytecode.
Given the following invokevirtual, where does the varargs part appear?
invokevirtual java/dyn/MethodHandle, invoke, ([Ljava/lang/Object;)V
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the mlvm-dev