related link

[Alex Buckley]

Off-topic for lambda-dev. Please do not cross-post.

John Nilsson wrote:
> In my, admittedly rather naïve, mind such a static construct could
> be modelled as transparent closures with the added restriction that it is to
> in-lined at compile time, and as such would disallow any treatment of them
> as run-time constructs. F.ex. moving references around would be a static
> error.
> 
> The rather narrow goal in my mind being to allow "non-local returns" without
> the scary stuff ;)
> 
> When you said "has been shown" did you have any particular paper in mind?
> (I'm rather curious about PL-research)
> 
> BR,
> John
> 
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>