On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> I am heartened to hear that the spec referenced is not *too* official
> yet. I don't have any *big *issues with it -- but on a syntactic level I
> just really don't like the use of #. It seems oddly out of place when
> compared to closures
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote:
> This thing is becoming a mess of rumors and urban myths... can please
> somebody who's well informed (possibly one of the key players) try to recap
> the *correct* situation in a blog post?
>
I'd like tha
The @Since solution only works for some kinds of changes. For
example, it does not work for changes to the inheritance hierarchy
(like the insertion of new base classes or interfaces) or
generification of previously non-generic APIs. It's also subject to
error and very difficult to test to ensur
atch parameter whose type has more than one disjunct is required to
be declared final."
In short, I don't believe the proposal has any impact on the type
system.
Cheers,
Neal Gafter
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Jul 14, 7:37 am, Martin Wildam wrote:
> > > on the Microsoft side
> > > it's more top-down. In Redmond, there's an interesting arsenal of
> > > experts (Hejlsberg, Meijer, Hugunin etc.) who have been meeting in a
> > > room 3 days a week for the last decade, who try to find ways for us to
> >
On Jul 7, 8:10 am, Ben Schulz wrote:
> > Can anyone confirm whether this will definitely be in Java 7?
>
> To be blunt: No.
>
> What will *definitely* make it into Java 7 will be decided by the Java
> 7 EG (once appointed).
All true, presuming Sun/Oracle uses the JDK process for Java 7; given
th
On Mar 27, 6:17 am, JodaStephen wrote:
> "2006.10.24 - 7. Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open
> source projects from creating and distributing their own compatible
> open source implementations of Java SE 6, using standard open source
> licenses. (Yes, you can create your own open so
On Feb 17, 8:12 am, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> agreed, sort of. We really have to decide if we want java to become a
> structural/nominal hybrid language. Right now java is strictly
> nominal. BGGA wants to add functional types, which is structural
> typing (I don't give you a Comparator, nono,
