Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b

[Neal Gafter]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at googlemail.com>wrote:

>
> On 16 Dec 2009, at 03:21, Neal Gafter wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> Bit of a long shot this, but is there any value in revisiting the old idea
>> of using a different syntax for yielding a value from a lambda?
>>
>
> That doesn't work out so well, for reasons discussed in gory detail here: <
> http://gafter.blogspot.com/2006/08/tennents-correspondence-principle-and.html
> >.
>
> Cheers,
> Neal
>
>
> OK, although I must admit I'm struggling to see how it doesn't also apply
> to the use of 'return' in statement lambdas.
>

It does, which is why another lambda form is required that is transparent.
In the current spec that is the expression lambda.

Cheers,
Neal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20091216/bae324f5/attachment.html