Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b

[Neal Gafter]

Talden-

Good point.  I'll add the following note as a clarification at the end of
the *control invocation syntax *section in the next revision:

Note that a consequence of this specification is that a break, continue, or
return within the body of a control invocation can transfer to a target
outside the control invocation statement. That is not a separate language
rule, but a consequence of the meaning of the individual language elements
that make up the specification of the control invocation statement.

Can this be said more clearly?

You can see working drafts of the 0.7 documents by guessing the URLs.

Cheers,
Neal

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Talden <talden at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Jonathan Gibbons
> > <Jonathan.Gibbons at sun.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ouch. That's pretty subtle, especially as the statement in a control
> >> invocation form is defined to use an expression lambda instead of a
> >> statement lambda.
> >
> > Maybe subtle for the specification, but not subtle for the Java
> programmer,
> > as you don't see a lambda when you're writing a control invocation.
>
> I think that's a really significant point that warrants clear mention
> in the documentation. It comes up frequently yet, as you say, this is
> a subtle point of confusion for reading the specification not reading
> and writing java code.
>
> From the developers perspective they're not writing a lambda, they're
> writing a local block of code - continue, break and return should act
> as though they're local.
>
> --
> Aaron Scott-Boddendijk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20091214/42dc1cad/attachment.html