Virtual extension methods - syntax options

[Howard Lovatt]

Whether you code any suggestion, syntax or implementation, is
surely orthogonal to whether it is a syntax or implementation suggestion.
With regard to actual coding, no point anyone coding something that isn't
going to fly in the long run.

As an aside, I have implemented at least to the proof of concept some ideas,
e.g.:

http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=278567

On 12 June 2010 11:58, Jesse Kuhnert <jkuhnert at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
>



-- 
 -- Howard.