m.invoke() vs. m()

[Neal Gafter]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <reinier at zwitserloot.com
> wrote:

> Also, just to throw a wrench in the works, from a style perspective, I
> think '.invoke' is much cleaner. Which shows exactly why style sensitivities
> have no place in this discussion.
>

I don't follow this logic.  At best that shows why the style sensitivities
of some particular participants have no place here*.  I suspect there is a
hidden premise in your argument that the style preferences of any one
participant in this discussion is as important as any other's.  That all
very democratic and egalitarian of you, but it doesn't work that way in
practice.  Some participants may have style sensitivities that are likely to
result in a more natural-feeling language for the majority of its users.
Programming language design by democratic processes doesn't tend to work out
very well.

* You've already declared that the positions you're taking now on topics
such as function types <
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/coin-dev/2009-November/002498.html>
are "a rotten piece of idiocy that will ruin Java" <
http://zwitserloot.com/2006/10/09/concise-instance-creation-expressions-dissection/>,
and that if closures of the style currently being considered are added,
you're switching to another language <
http://zwitserloot.com/2006/08/26/alternatives-to-closures-java/>.  The
other participants in this discussion at least respect their own opinions,
and haven't publicly voiced reasons that they might undermine this effort.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20091206/0a159458/attachment.html