Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b

[Neal Gafter]

Yes, that's a good point.  Either Jump has to be public or hidden in the
subclasses.

Cheers,
Neal

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict at apache.org> wrote:

> Neal,
>
> >> PS: Are you introducing a new Jump type too?
> >
> > Since the underlying mechanism for implementing the transfer is a
> contract
> > between the compiler and itself, it need not be specified.  BGGA's
> prototype
> > uses the Jump type, which could be used to implement this specification
> as
> > well, but it is not visible to Java programmers so it is not part of the
> > specification.
>
> I don't know how you can keep that constructor public without also
> exposing the Jump type, but I guess it's there solely for
> demonstrative purposes. Isn't the only operand to a Jump instruction
> its offset? You could probably turn that constructor argument into an
> int primitive unless you think more information is required.
>
> Paul
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20091214/7f7f1465/attachment.html