On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Optimal for both size and performance is to generate the bodies into > static methods as above, but use either unique stub classes as the > function objects [...]. Does this mean that there are Foo, Bar, and Baz classes, each providing a non-static apply method that calls the appropriate static method in FooBarBaz? I don't see why that's better than just having one class per function with the function right in the class. -- GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures -- 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.
