related link

[Neal Gafter]

John-

It hasn't been shown that a simple macro facility can support control
constructs in a library in the absence of transparent closures (I'd welcome
your attempt to do so).  However, it has been shown that transparent
closures are sufficient.  Macros are nice in making the syntax of such
control APIs more convenient; BGGA and CfJ 0.6b <
http://www.javac.info/closures-v06b.html> address the convenience issue by
supporting one particular but common special case (where a function is
accepted by an API as its last parameter) rather than attempting to add a
complete hygienic macro system.

Cheers,
Neal

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 2:50 PM, John Nilsson <john at milsson.nu> wrote:

> It seems to me that project lambda fits better with, well, lambdas.
>
> The other goals would probably be better addressed with some static
> construct, like macros.
>
> BR,
> John
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>
>> Jesse-
>>
>> That article provides a good understanding of the goals of BGGA and CfJ
>> 0.6a/b (and the openjdk closures project), as contrasted with the goals of
>> the current effort (openjdk project lambda).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Neal
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > With no intention of implying that either language is close enough to
>> > be compared directly,  just that it's a lengthy analysis of the
>> > subject matter here which might provide more mental fuel.
>> >
>> > http://yehudakatz.com/2010/02/07/the-building-blocks-of-ruby/
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>