On Sep 14, 4:30 pm, jddarcy <jdda...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > In contrast to this productive discourse, take the brouhaha over not > including multi-catch in the Coin final five left in comments on my > blog. [3] My message announcing the final five makes clear that this > decision was made based on resourcing concerns rather than the merits > of the idea itself. Not one of the people leaving comments full of > wailing and gnashing of teeth about the omission offered to do > anything to help implement the feature.
I did provide a working prototype of multi-catch in the BGGA compiler more than a year before the Coin call for proposals, and I communicated directly to you (Joe) my willingness to complete the work for project Coin (i.e. implement the feature in isolation) if it was a feature you were interested in having. As I understand your comments, it wasn't the compiler implementation you were mainly worried about. You were worried about the specification work in the type system. However, quoting from the proposal: "To avoid the need to add support for general disjunctive types, but leaving open the possibility of a future extension along these lines, a catch parameter whose type has more than one disjunct is required to be declared final." In short, I don't believe the proposal has any impact on the type system. Cheers, Neal Gafter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
