On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Martin Probst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> very interesting article. I'm not sure if I should rather ask here or
> in your blog, I'll try here first :-)
>
> In the article you use a function H(Object.equals) in pseudocode,
> which is supposed to give you a method handle. I'm curious, with the
> new uses of annotations for meta programming in Java (using reflection
> or byte code modifications like AspectJ), you'll see stuff like this
> all over the place:
>
> @Entity
> @Index(on = "bar")
> class Foo {
> private String bar;
> }
>
> I.e., the field bar is referenced by it's name as a String, which is
> ugly for many reasons. Stuff like this can be found in Hibernate
> annotations, JPA annotations, JSR-311 and so on.
>
> I think while your at it defining a way to obtain a handle to a
> method, maybe it would be nice to introduce something like a Smalltalk
> symbol to Java? I'd like to be able to write "@Index(on = &Foo.bar)",
> or something similar. We'd need the equivalents of a local symbol
> (resolvable in the context of a class), a resolved symbol that maps to
> a fully qualified name, and then maybe a way to differentiate between
> methods and fields.
A couple of the closure proposals include some form of method/field
literal, it would look like this:
-fields: Foo#bar
-methods: Foo#bar(), Foo#bar(int)
It's better to reuse whatever syntax these proposals use.
> Something like this would make many meta programming APIs a lot easier
> to use, including yours about method handles.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
Best regards,
Daniel Yokomizo
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM
Languages" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
