Virtual extension methods - syntax options

[Jesse Kuhnert]

The mercurial repository looks like an ideal place to try alternatives out from.

Maybe you should just check it out and show us what you had in mind in
the form of a working implementation? Or were you implying that
everyone else should be working on your theories as well as their own?
Seems only fair.

On Friday, June 11, 2010, Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com> wrote:
> *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.
>
>