First draft of translation document

Alex Blewitt alex.blewitt at
Thu May 20 09:32:16 PDT 2010

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


More information about the lambda-dev mailing list