I have pushed what I have so far to http://github.com/headius/invokebinder
There are tests for everything except "cast" so far, but I have not added all handle transforms. I'd love to have contributions, and will happily add anyone that wants to contribute :) Note: I could not figure out how to get Maven to pass the appropriate invokedynamic -XX parameters to the JVM. If someone knows how to do that, please show me. - Charlie On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Howard Lovatt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Charles, > > Yes it is interesting to me, looks much easier to use and also nice > that you can chain calls because they are instance methods rather than > static functions. > > I will give it a try once you have a version to download. > > -- Howard. > > On 21 March 2011 17:21, Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm working on a DSL for binding method handles *forward* rather than >> backward. It's not much logic, really, but for me it's much easier to >> reason about incoming arguments being transformed toward an eventual >> target, rather than a target being transformed backward toward >> incoming arguments. The API lets you bind like this: >> >> MethodHandle mh = Binder >> .from(String.class, String.class, String.class) // (String, String)String >> .drop(1, String.class) // (String)String >> .insert(0, 'hello') // (String, String)String >> .cast(String.class, CharSequence.class, Object.class) // >> (CharSequence, Object)String >> .invoke(someTargetHandle); >> >> Is this interesting to others on the list? I will push my work to >> github sooner rather than later if so. I plan to use this in JRuby to >> make the MH binding code easier to read. >> >> - Charlie >> _______________________________________________ >> mlvm-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev >> > > > > -- > -- Howard. > _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
