Virtual extension methods - syntax options

[Jesse Kuhnert]

I just find it ironic to watch all of these people with open source
affiliations conveniently leaving all those rules behind here.
Probably applies to any shared creative/significant effort.

They wouldn't get away with that on other projects, what makes them
special here?

On all projects opinions and constructive criticism are usually always
well received, but there is always a distinct divide between those who
do and those who do not. Bugs with patches and bugs with lots of
opinions.

Just saying...common sense stuff guys. We all have day jobs.

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