Preparing for the 0.2 draft

[Mark Thornton]

Neal Gafter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Mark Thornton <mthornton at optrak.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>> Joshua Bloch wrote:
>>     
>>> True, but I haven't heard *any *arguments in favor of the "transparent this"
>>> that are in any way applicable to Java. Maybe I'm being dense, but I believe
>>> it's cargo cult language design.  In Java, I believe it would be a
>>> gratuitous inconsistency, pure and simple.  And I believe it would bite us
>>> sooner rather than later.  If I'm wrong, I'd love to see some compelling,
>>> practical examples where having this refer to the enclosing instance is
>>> useful (in Java).
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> A decision could be delayed by not allowing an unqualified "this" at all
>> (the qualified form is unambiguous so could remain).
>>     
>
> And also not allowing the use of unqualified "toString" etc?
>   
Yes.

"Method is ambiguous with a lambda, <mailto: mthornton at optrak.co.uk> to 
complain or vote for your preferred resolution!"

;-)

Mark