Fabrizio Giudici wrote: > gafter wrote: >> On Nov 19, 9:00 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Neal wrote that >>> changed spec AFTER the presentation, and AFTER that BOF session. It's >>> basically BGGA with non-local control transfer taken out. It could >>> form a basis for further discussion, but that is about as far removed >>> from an official seal of approval as any other proposal. >>> >> Correction: I wrote this spec about two weeks ago, before the >> conference began, as part of a discussion with Gosling on a compromise >> spec. >> > This thing is becoming a mess of rumors and urban myths... can please > somebody who's well informed (possibly one of the key players) try to > recap the *correct* situation in a blog post? Yes, please!
I am heartened to hear that the spec referenced is not /too/ official yet. I don't have any /big /issues with it -- but on a syntactic level I just really don't like the use of #. It seems oddly out of place when compared to closures in other languages -- or in BGGA. -- Jess Holle -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@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=.
