For further consideration...
david.goodenough at linkchoose.co.uk
Mon Mar 30 11:50:40 PDT 2009
On Monday 30 March 2009, Bob Lee wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:47 AM, David Goodenough <
> david.goodenough at linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
> > This is NOT the same as saying it is listed as out of scope, and the
> > reason given is that it is likely to be "at least medium sized". My
> > proposal is (at least to my eyes) smaller than many that are being
> > accepted, and so would therefore seem to fall INSIDE the scope, NOT
> > outside it.
> While your proposal may be small on syntax and library changes (I actually
> don't think it's small myself), based on the feedback you received,
> properties in general are obviously big on controversy.
One tiny little bit of desugaring is all that is needed, and the library
code is just one short class of just 180 lines so I can not see that it can
be seen as anything but small. And to borrow (with small modification)
the syntax description from the Field and Method literals proposal is
just a few lines to be added to the JLS.
I think that questions of controversy seem to be being used as a smoke
screen to block sensible discussion of something which is genuinely
More information about the coin-dev