Effectively final effective?

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

Let's posit for a moment that your model IS a more common viewpoint
(something I doubt):

So what? I already showed that those people who are confused about my model
will see the error of their ways in 2 seconds. The people who are confused
about your model, even if there are only a tenth of them (I highly doubt
this), need an hour. 60 minutes is a lot more than 2 seconds * 10.

I don't know if your interpretation of the four cases is correct; you're
using the Neal syntax which I haven't reviewed. Guessing at intent and
looking at the output (and correcting for the off-by-1), I believe so.

NB: Without hashes as a visual anchor, this is really hard to read. I'm not
sure Neal syntax is a good idea, even if _by themselves_ closure types may
read more naturally.

--Reinier Zwitserloot



On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 12:25 AM, John Nilsson <john at milsson.nu> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <
> reinier at zwitserloot.com> wrote:
>
>> John, you're making the argument that something is so natural it doesn't
>> need explaining.... by explaining it.
>>
>> As long as you need to explain it, it's obviously not the "non-surprising,
>> obvious" behaviour you think it is.
>>
> OTOH the fact that you have a different mental model than I do not make it
> a "crackpot" argument. It is simply different, and the only way to know for
> sure is to make some kind of survey. I suspect that my mental model of the
> semantics will prove to be more common than yours. But right now I have no
> other proof than pointing out examples of how current Java semantics already
> match my mental model.
>
> BR,
> John
>