Charles Oliver Nutter a écrit : > John Rose wrote: > >> Or (I don't know if it could be made to work, but it's worth thinking >> about) method handles could interoperate more tightly with closures, by >> having each individual method handle somehow take on the appropriate >> function interface type. >> > > I think this could lead to some kind of "handle explosion" where we have > (too) many handles designed to take many differently-structured > interface types. Too parametric? Obviously JRuby and Groovy take a very > simple approach now, and require all closures be of a single type and > its subtypes. If that were the idea you're talking about, where there's > a single closure interface everyone could implement, it would probably > be valuable for language implementers to more tightly interop...but I > can't imagine it would be pretty from Java. > > - Charlie > To avoid interface explosions, you can erase an object type as Neal Gafter has proposed: i.e (String,String => int) is erased to (Object,Object => int) and add casts at call site.
I've counted only 927 different erased signatures considering all public methods of all public classes of rt.jar. Rémi Rémi --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
