Function types versus arrays

[Alex Buckley]

Neal Gafter wrote:
> I desire a specification that is a consistent extension of the
> existing Java language.  Interactions with the existing language
> specification (not implementation) necessarily implies certain
> limitations to the spec.  Howard asserts otherwise, and I'm trying to
> help him see how his attempts to work around those limitations are
> fruitless.

I find it very difficult to follow Howard's scheme, since some is at 
Artima and some is sprinkled around this mailing list. I am surprised at 
the assumptions that suddenly appear from time to time, e.g. "For the 
moment lets assume that generics were extended so that you could have a 
vararg type construct". I worry about the boot loader having to 
auto-generate classes, since loaders are already under heavy 
modification for module systems. And it all feels similar to NextGen's 
approach to reification, though no proper comparison has ever been made.

For these reasons, I welcome Neal's continued analysis of the scheme on 
lambda-dev, even if it sometimes looks like the implementation focus is 
getting out of hand.

Alex