On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]>wrote:
> I know many people have asked for everything you mention, and the > truth is that even in JRuby's case, where we've bent the JVM over > backwards, we still have to work around most of these same > limitations. So would I support fixing them all? Absolutely. But I > suppose the limiting factor is getting someone to lead a JSR. For > better or worse, that's how changes get in. > > The alternative would be to just hack these changes into javac and the > verifier ourselves, show how much nicer they are, and get them > fast-tracked through the JCP. That seems to be the most rapid way to > spin changes. I think a new JSR would be overkill for this kind of change. Specify and implement it, and it could be added to JDK7 as an update to JSR 202, which explicitly included the expansion of these limits in its charter but never actually made the necessary changes. However, the changes should probably be done rather soon to get on that train. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
