Closures for Java (0.6) specification part b

[Mark Mahieu]

Aha, yes I'm with you now.  I'd interpreted that quite differently.

Thanks for the explanation.

Mark


On 16 Dec 2009, at 15:56, Neal Gafter wrote:

> 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/f14ffb35/attachment.html