Virtual extension methods - syntax options

[Jesse Kuhnert]

Just to be clear, what your statement basically says is it's not worth
your time to prove your ideas?

If this were the lambda-theories mailing list that might work but
you'll notice it's the lambda-dev mailing list. Using your same
argument I could easily say it's not worth anyones time to even read
any message you send.

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.
>
>