function types syntax

[Zdenek Tronicek]

So far I thought that we all have the same priorities for closures syntax:

- readability (they are easy to understand),
- intuitiveness (one does not have to learn them for weeks),
- completness (the syntax proposed should involve all the use-cases).

Anything else is far less important.

Z.
-- 
Zdenek Tronicek
FIT CTU in Prague


Lawrence Kesteloot napsal(a):
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Rémi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>>> The compiler only has to be implemented once, ...
>>
>> Just remember that Java is a spec, and a spec is usually
>> not implemented once.
>> Javac will have to implement it, ecj too. All dialects of
>> Java like by example Groovy, beanshell will have to implement it too.
>> ANTLR will provide a grammar, SableCC also, etc.
>
> And the IDEs, editors with syntax highlighting (vim, emacs, wikis,
> etc.), GWT, ...
>
> I'm not concerned about the amount of work involved. As Neal says,
> that's outweighed by the work saved by programmers. But I am concerned
> about each of those implementations getting it right. How are we to
> test that GWT's closure semantics match those of the JDK? The more
> complex a feature, that harder it is to get right. See the number of
> obscure inconsistencies between Eclipse and JDK over the years, for
> example.
>
> Lawrence
>
>