From: David Vallner <david@...>
Date: 2006-10-17T05:49:11+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] What is the reason for this syntax?

--------------enigEFBF79B9E221E500A44D4769
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Louis J Scoras wrote:

> And hopefully--for the sake
> of all of our souls--not the Java guys.  Well, I'm just kidding on the
> last one--kinda.
>=20

<defensive-nerve-twitch>
Hey!
</defensive-nerve-twitch>

For something more non-trollish, the Java rocky way towards lambdas and
closures via anonymous inner classes (eww) just might mean that if
either CICE or BGGA get promoted into the language, you could use a
stateful command-object implementing a SAM type interchangeably with a
closure, eliminating the need for a first-class (and isolated) closure
concept. Which I can't think of what it could be good for, but then
again, noone knew what continuations were good for for a webapp until
recently either.

David Vallner


--------------enigEFBF79B9E221E500A44D4769
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFFM/BBy6MhrS8astoRAtHQAJ4jXSgVND/YfsSCL+MzzsnDLqHbXwCeL5B9
Cf8d6mI5tq91pBjTHuvzEsU=
=yhyy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigEFBF79B9E221E500A44D4769--