Preparing for the 0.2 draft

[Ricky Clarkson]

They work the same way as BGGA's.  Though only for return, as Scala
has no break or continue.

Thanks,
Ricky.

--
Ricky Clarkson
Java and Scala Programmer, AD Holdings
+44 1928 706373
Skype: ricky_clarkson
Google Talk: ricky.clarkson at gmail.com
Google Wave: ricky.clarkson at googlewave.com



On 2 February 2010 16:18, Mark Mahieu <markmahieu at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2 Feb 2010, at 16:02, Neal Gafter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
>>>> that the kind of errors you're concerned about don't arise
>>>> in practice.
>>>
>>> I don't think that we know very much about this.
>>> There is very little experience out there with
>>> extensive parallel usages of such constructs, and
>>> those few parallel languages that include some form
>>> of lambda/closure (including X10 and Fortress) do not
>>> hoist scopes.
>>
>> [Moving conversation to closures-dev]
>>
>> I don't know whether you consider Scala a "parallel language", and one
>> can argue whether or not its use has been "extensive", but there is
>> little evidence that Scala's nonlocal transfers [or access to
>> enclosing scopes, for that matter] have caused the kind of craziness
>> you appear to be worried about.
>
> Out of interest, do you know how Scala's nonlocal transfers are implemented (roughly)?  I must admit that BGGA's gave me the jitters before I understood how they would work, but they turned out to really quite mundane, and easy enough to reason about, diagnose problems etc.
>
> Mark
>
>