Fair enough - if reification can be seamlessly added then I shall in fact insert a sock within it. (That's got to be better than the Dick Wall - unless they are some how related).
Do you think it was an under-sight that they didn't expect people to want reification? Or perhaps they were aware of it but left it in the 'in' tray. Do you know if reification will solve new T() - and the fact that a T [] is actually a Object[] - and will it break the current hack of simply casting a new Object[]. I'm not being facetious. These are serious questions. :) On Jan 28, 10:23 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: > They didn't bollocks up generics at all. They are fine as is. > > Reification would be great, but fortunately there is absolutely > nothing in the current implementation that precludes reification. In > other words, reification is -really- hard, but nothing that was done > so far made it harder. Anyone wanna name a way that would have been > better? If you don't have anything, then with all due respect, put a > sock in it. > > As far as closures go - just give me a month. I'm working on a uniting > proposal that should make everyone happy. At least, everyone that > likes one of the many closure proposals out there. Especially now that > BGGA is effectively out on its arse due to Gafter leaving and the > other letters in BGGA stopped caring long ago. The prototype's last > commit was 5 months ago, and it still doesn't properly do long returns/ > breaks/continues, one of the two main reasons why BGGA exists in the > first place. Even though it looks like the closure horse has been well > beaten to death, I actually think its still for a lack of leadership > that there's no consensus. > > On Jan 28, 12:22 am, Christian Catchpole <christ...@catchpole.net> > wrote: > > > Hey I didn't say we don't want closures. I'm just saying, for Java's > > sake, "Closures, close thy self". :) > > > Maybe after bollocksing up generics, they are being super cautious. > > > On Jan 28, 12:33 am, Hairless_ape <gantra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We need to add something to Java. Closures is something, therefore we > > > must add closures to Java. > > > > Stop this destructive line of thought against closures or you will get > > > 5 days in the Dick Wall room. > > > (Oh and references to the Dick Wall room will NEVER get old) > > > > On Jan 27, 10:47 am, Christian Catchpole <christ...@catchpole.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > How much resource (inside and outside of Sun) has been expended going > > > > over and over the multiple options for closures? I fear there is no > > > > balance to the force. * > > > > > * And here I was thinking I would never make a geeky star wars > > > > reference. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
