Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b

[Neal Gafter]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:

> I think the current spec is a worthwhile simplification versus BGGA, but
> I'd be happy to entertain further revisions.  Maybe you like BGGA's lambda
> syntax for these "blocks" ?
>

Incidentally, if we do that then we don't need block expressions, and we can
use a slightly different lambda conversion that allows boxing and unboxing
when matching lambda parameters to the interface function (Josh Bloch
expressed his preference for that in "Closures Controversy," slide 48).

Cheers,
Neal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20091214/36b5c7c9/attachment.html