> So, FCM both violates and follows Tennants Correspondance Principle.
> But that is in fact a very good thing, something that a naive
> statement of "violates TCP" fails to appreciate.
Stephen,
not realizing that TCP is violated would be naive and that's what CICE
does. I was not trying to "name drop", I was simply extending
Reinier's second point, which was "long returns", a symptom of TCP if
you will. If and how FCM solves that problem is neither here nor there
when you compare CICE and BGGA. (Though I would prefer a one-size-fits-
all proposal over one that differentiates between control abstractions
and "inline closures" I concede that it eliminates a lot of the
complexity.)
With kind regards
Ben
> Stephen
>
> On Jan 16, 12:24 pm, Ben Schulz <ya...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > using(closeable, Block() {
> > // old code
> > someMap.get(this); // ouch
> > // more old code
>
> > });
>
> > In a pure language (which Java is by no means) this would happen all
> > the time, because e.g. if-else is implemented as a message on Boolean
> > (hello Smalltalk). In those languages the violation of TCP would be a
> > major annoyance, but at least you would get used to it. In Java it
> > would simply be a source of evil evil *evil* bugs!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
