Am 04.03.2015 23:50, schrieb Charles Oliver Nutter:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
my biggest request: allow the call of a super constructor (like
super(foo,bar)) using MethodHandles an have it understood by the JVM like a
normal super constructor call... same for this
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> my biggest request: allow the call of a super constructor (like
> super(foo,bar)) using MethodHandles an have it understood by the JVM like a
> normal super constructor call... same for this(...)
Just so I understand...the problem is that
Busy week, finally circling back to this thread...
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:29 PM, John Rose wrote:
>> * A loop handle :-)
>>
>> Given a body and a test, run the body until the test is false. I'm
>> guessing there's a good reason we don't have this already.
>
> A few reasons: 1. You can code y
Julian wrote
An open question that I have is that of facilitating the support
of overloaded methods.
It's typically something dynamically-typed languages struggle
with, and doing it
correctly *and* efficiently is not that pretty.
Overloaded and multi methods have always
On 03/04/2015 12:00 PM, Julien Ponge wrote:
Hello,
I echo Jochen's griefs on constructors. There are cases of dynamic subclassing
or bytecode wizardry where one would like to make that call with invokedynamic,
and being forced into doing so with an invokespecial to not break the verifier
rul
Am 04.03.2015 12:00, schrieb Julien Ponge:
Hello,
I echo Jochen's griefs on constructors. There are cases of dynamic subclassing
or bytecode wizardry where one would like to make that call with invokedynamic,
and being forced into doing so with an invokespecial to not break the verifier
rules
AAARRGGHH! I hate these reply-to settings for this mailing list!
Sorry.
David
On 4/03/2015 9:13 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Marcus,
On 3/03/2015 9:12 PM, Marcus Lagergren wrote:
At the VM language summit at JFokus 2015, we discussed having ways to
get new dynamic language functions into the JVM
Marcus,
On 3/03/2015 9:12 PM, Marcus Lagergren wrote:
At the VM language summit at JFokus 2015, we discussed having ways to get new
dynamic language functions into the JVM without having to resort to generating
a class wrapping their byte code. A class is currently the smallest possible
compi
Hello,
I echo Jochen's griefs on constructors. There are cases of dynamic subclassing
or bytecode wizardry where one would like to make that call with invokedynamic,
and being forced into doing so with an invokespecial to not break the verifier
rules is a big problem.
Other than that having so
