Virtual extension methods - syntax options

[Howard Lovatt]

*Brian Goetz* brian.goetz at oracle.com
<https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&to=lambda-dev%40openjdk.java.net&su=Virtual%20extension%20methods%20-%20syntax%20options&In-Reply-To=AANLkTimJotG3ql2j5ckvAoLBIFqFjuKC8C30oVBlHVgb%40mail.gmail.com>
 *Fri Jun 11 07:59:35 PDT 2010 wrote:*

>The answer is neither: the syntax is not set in stone, but we strongly
>discourage ongoing discussions of syntax :)

Some sentiment along this line keeps on getting invoked. Since various
discussions keep on coming back to the syntax, the lambdas themselves,
extension methods, exception transparency, etc., I would suggest it is more
important than you give it credit for. The syntax discussions can occur in
parallel to the implementation discussions; in fact I would say that this is
ideal, since if a workable syntax cannot be found there is no point in
continuing with the implementation.

To make this concrete; I would suggest that if the syntax of variance (wild
cards) was throughly investigated before the implementation or in parallel
with the implementation then we wouldn't have variance today (which the
wider community, and myself, think would be a good thing).

A good language or language feature needs to balance not only the
implementation but also the burden on the programmer. Do you not see the
irony in arguing that syntax isn't important on a lambda discussion group;
lets face it, one of the primary motivations for lambdas is
the unwieldy syntax of inner classes?

On a more philosophical point, stifling discussion is rarely fruitful. If
people want to discuss something let them. I would only draw the line if the
discussions were abusive or wildly off topic.

 -- Howard.