Transparancy

[Jesse Kuhnert]

On Wednesday, July 7, 2010, Reinier Zwitserloot <reinier at zwitserloot.com> wrote:
> Fair enough, I should stop using Neal's random vocabulary. You're indeed
> entirely correct in that I was referring to allowing lambdas to be treated
> as the block to a custom control construct.
>

Or rather you should stop using his vocabulary to make yourself sound
smart when you don't understand the meaning behind it.
>
> --Reinier Zwitserloot
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Reinier,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <
>> reinier at zwitserloot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> To preserve (future) transparency, yield is used instead of return.
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe this is an abuse of the word "transparency."  There's nothing
>> transparent about making the "return" keyword do double duty to mean "long
>> return."  It's a new concept, and if and when it is to be supported in Java,
>> it deserves a new keyword.
>>
>>
>>> Okay. It
>>> has a secondary benefit, even, in that folks looking at java code
>>> definitely
>>> won't confuse an 'inner' return with an 'outer' one, as inner returns are
>>> now called 'yield'.
>>
>>
>> This makes little sense to me.  I don't think anyone would confuse a return
>> from within a lambda with a "naked return."  People don't have that problem
>> with nested classes today.
>>
>>
>>> However, if future transparency is the goal...
>>
>>
>> When you say "future transparency," I believe that what you mean is
>> "allowing lambdas to be used to emulate control constructs in the future."
>>  I think you should call it that.
>>
>>          Josh
>>
>>
>
>