function types syntax

[Zdenek Tronicek]

I add one more to these three:

- compatibility (the syntax should be compatible with existing language).

Z.
-- 
Zdenek Tronicek
FIT CTU in Prague


Zdenek Tronicek napsal(a):
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>