First draft of translation document

[Alex Blewitt]

On 20 May 2010, at 16:40, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:

>> Reasoning about this for the VM gets a lot easier if the VM knows for
>> sure that the closure will not escape from its current stack frame.  
>> In
>> other words, in code like this:
>>
>> list.filter(#(Person p) (p.age() < 20));
>>
>> assuming for a moment that filter is 'eager', that closure won't  
>> escape.
>
> There's a bigger assumption here: that filter is explicitly  
> sequential.  But
> I'd like it if filter() had the option to do the filtering in  
> parallel in a
> fork-join pool!  Simplifying library-based parallelism was one of  
> the explicit
> goals for this effort.
>
> In any case this is the easy case, a "type 1".  Here, the closure is  
> a "pure
> function" so all sorts of good things can happen

It's not a closure; it's a lambda. There is no local state to capture;  
so it's a closed term already. It's only a closure if it captures  
lexical scope outside the function.

Alex