Re: On invoke dynamic and method handles

2008-12-17 Thread Rémi Forax
John Rose a écrit : > (Wow, guess I must be furious!) > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:09 PM, John Rose wrote: > >> That's right, Remi. I'm working furiously on both spec. and implem. >> >> furiously, aiming to get a refresh of both by Christmas. >> Cool, can i call you Santa :) Rémi _

Re: On invoke dynamic and method handles

2008-12-17 Thread Iulian Dragos
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM, John Rose wrote: > The most recent version of JVM specs. (headed for HotSpot integration > RSN) is here for engineering review: > http://webrev.invokedynamic.info/jrose/6655638.meth/ > > That review copy is changing also; it's now a month old. John, thanks for

Re: On invoke dynamic and method handles

2008-12-17 Thread John Rose
(Wow, guess I must be furious!) On Dec 17, 2008, at 1:09 PM, John Rose wrote: That's right, Remi. I'm working furiously on both spec. and implem. furiously, aiming to get a refresh of both by Christmas. ___ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected]

Re: On invoke dynamic and method handles

2008-12-17 Thread John Rose
On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Rémi Forax wrote: > Iulian Dragos a écrit : >> I noticed several differences between what JSR 292 >> (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=292) says and the current >> implementation. I know this is work in progress, but at least one >> difference seems small enough to be

Re: On invoke dynamic and method handles

2008-12-17 Thread Iulian Dragos
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Rémi Forax wrote: > Iulian Dragos a écrit : >> I noticed several differences between what JSR 292 >> (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=292) says and the current >> implementation. I know this is work in progress, but at least one >> difference seems small enough to

Re: On invoke dynamic and method handles

2008-12-17 Thread Rémi Forax
Iulian Dragos a écrit : > I noticed several differences between what JSR 292 > (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=292) says and the current > implementation. I know this is work in progress, but at least one > difference seems small enough to be an oversight. > Currently, the first draft of the sp

On invoke dynamic and method handles

2008-12-17 Thread Iulian Dragos
I noticed several differences between what JSR 292 (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=292) says and the current implementation. I know this is work in progress, but at least one difference seems small enough to be an oversight. The signature of the bootstrap method is defined as Object(CallSite cs,

Re: trouble building mlvm

2008-12-17 Thread Iulian Dragos
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Ben Evans wrote: > Hi Lulian, It's iulian (but don't worry, everyone does that :) > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Iulian Dragos wrote: >> >> I am happy to report I could run the InvokeDynamicDemo day! I had to >> pass empty maps instead of nulls to the 'put

Re: trouble building mlvm

2008-12-17 Thread Ben Evans
Hi Lulian, On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Iulian Dragos wrote: > I am happy to report I could run the InvokeDynamicDemo day! I had to > pass empty maps instead of nulls to the 'putPatches' method, otherwise > it throws an NPE (honestly, I have no idea how it could work > otherwise). I'm one

Re: trouble building mlvm

2008-12-17 Thread Iulian Dragos
I am happy to report I could run the InvokeDynamicDemo day! I had to pass empty maps instead of nulls to the 'putPatches' method, otherwise it throws an NPE (honestly, I have no idea how it could work otherwise). Champagne! Iulian On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Iulian Dragos wrote: > Good to s