Preparing for the 0.2 draft

[Doug Lea]

Neal Gafter wrote:
>  That, too, has nothing to do with whether or not the
> concurrency is expressed using higher-order code (i.e. lambdas) or
> imperative code.  Conflating these concepts in the language design
> threatens to undermine their utility.
> 

Not so sure.
My main point is that in the realm of parallelism,
there is an increasing trend to enforce non-raciness by
construction (for a Java-based effort, see "DPJ"
http://dpj.cs.uiuc.edu/DPJ/Home.html). And again, just
because you cannot fully preclude raciness in Java does not
meant you should ignore the issue.

> 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.

-Doug