Feedback and comments on ARM proposal

[Bob Lee]

+1. I also like not adding types directly to java.lang.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com> wrote:

> Tim,
> This is very clever!  While it doesn't allow programmers to create their
> own
> interfaces for use with the construct, it allows future release of the
> platform to broaden the applicability of the construct without changing the
> language.  And it does so without abusing annotations.  While it's not a
> typical uses of packages, it wouldn't be the first time the language gave
> special standing to a package.  For example, members of java.lang are
> automatically imported on demand.
>
> What do others think?
>
>             Josh
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Tim Peierls <tim at peierls.net> wrote:
>
> > How about using a special package -- java.lang.auto, say -- with
> initially
> > only one or two interfaces -- AutoCloseable and AutoDisposable, say --
> and
> > word the ARM proposal so that only subtypes of interfaces with a single,
> > parameterless method that are declared in this special package are
> allowed
> > in the ARM try-initialization?
> >
> > The idea here is to remove the decision about which clean-up methods to
> > support from the current proposal and make it a library design issue.
> >
> > --tim
> >
> >
>
>