Local functions

[Jesse Kuhnert]

By asking for requirements you seem to be ultimately asking for the
design and implementation as well, since the two kind of go hand in
hand in this instance don't they?

Seems like something that shouldn't be created with your standard
"requirements defined first" sort of structure.  Free flowing thoughts
and random changes will likely produce better results but who knows
...I don't really know what I'm talking about anyways.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Stephen Colebourne
<scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:
> On 11 February 2010 00:38, Alex Buckley <Alex.Buckley at sun.com> wrote:
>> "APIs like it" is a comprehensive term. You mention predicates; any
>> filter operation, be it in ParallelArray or the most sequential
>> collections API, is an obvious candidate for lambdas.
> [then later]
>> Thanks for your view. The Java ecosystem is a big place. This project is
>> interested primarily in supporting parallel execution.
>
> These two statements appear to be in contradiction. Or do you believe
> that you can primarily support parallel execution without compromising
> the more common case of regular inline non-parallel functors?
>
>> Goals at http://blogs.sun.com/mr/entry/closures.
>
> I'm looking for something clearer now we are in the formal project
> (not a kick off blog entry).
>
> If you'll forgive me, I seem to recall lack of requirements being a
> common complaint about Project Jigsaw too. ie. I'm suggesting you
> might find it something useful to do from a community engagement POV,
> to set expectations in the wider community as well as to clarify the
> debate here. IMO, doing so on Jigsaw would have helped the community
> debate there too.
>
> I certainly don't think the need for requirements is philosophical!
> (ie. I'm trying to encourage you to do things that will help everyone
> outside Sun understand what is going on here and make your lives a lot
> easier down the road)
>
>>  If you are
>> interested primarily in something else, there are other projects for you.
>
> There are no other projects with any chance of altering the Java
> language. My interest here is solely in ensuring that the design
> chosen will appeal to and be usable by to the wider community of Java
> developers (non alpha-geeks) - and yes, I know that will be my
> interpretation of their needs. I remain open to reading any proposal
> you may put forward and judging it on its merits.
>
> Stephen
>
>