m.invoke() vs. m() vs. m#()

[Vladimir Kirichenko]

Rémi Forax wrote:
> Le 13/12/2009 12:25, Vladimir Kirichenko a écrit :
>> Peter Levart wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> This has the benefit of:
>>> - being unambiguous (no need for special shadowing/name-space rules)
>>>      
>> Why be unambiguous here? For what? Just to have ability to name
>> everything with the same name?
>>
>> Why don't we have special syntax for making unambiguous:
>> * interfaces: class X interface %X
>> * enums: class X{} enum $X{};
>> * constructors (why not?): class X { ~X(){} }
>> * final fields/variables: public static final String&CONST;
>> * static methods:  C.*m*();
>> * !this()
>> * ^super()
> you forget + for public, _ for static, ¤ for transient.
> BTW, to make fun of Perl is not fair :)

You got me!:)

-- 
Best Regards,
Vladimir Kirichenko

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 259 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20091213/c3c3d45f/attachment.bin