NetBeans support for proposed small language extensions
Charles Oliver Nutter
charles.nutter at sun.com
Wed Jan 21 14:00:18 PST 2009
Rémi Forax wrote:
> I have no problem with the patch that allow javac to emit invokedynamic
> bytecode. I am even a strong supporter of this patch.
> I have more doubts with the patch that allow exotic identifiers.
I suppose this is where a standardization process comes in handy :)
I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile multiple proposed Java languages
changes that all want to use #. We have precious few symbols on a
standard keyboard. One criteria might be the likelihood of a proposal
making it into Java 7; that would mean indy gets to use # for tooling
purposes. But indy doesn't also include Java language changes, does it?
So this would only be a third-party extension to javac, not standard in
I personally like the # for dynamic dispatch quite a bit since multiple
dynlangs use it to identify methods (Rubyists frequently refer to
methods like String#to_s).
It does occur to me that these various uses may be basically the same.
Perhaps # with an identifier and no () would be your property syntax or
BGGA method reference syntax (perhaps eventually to be method handle
syntax?) and # with an identifier and () would be invocation syntax?
More information about the mlvm-dev