closures after all?

[Neal Gafter]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Lawrence Kesteloot <lk at teamten.com> wrote:

> If I understand pattern-based specification, it's basically
> compile-time duck typing (e.g., C++ templates). One advantage of
> interface-based specifications is that there's a javadoc I can read to
> learn about the contract.
>

A pattern-based specification can still be used with an interface like
AutoCloseable.  Even if interface-based, its specification can't really say
much about a contract.

I have a similar objection to closures: it encourages variables and
> parameters that are anonymous function signatures with no javadoc to
> help me learn about the contract. (CICE is exempt from this
> objection.)
>

Variables don't normally have contracts.  Parameters, on the other hand,
usually have their contracts specified in the method.  In the cases where
you would use a function type, there isn't much for the javadoc to day.
Just like primitive types, which also don't have contracts.