Typed Method handles

[Paulo Silveira - Caelum]

2011/6/13 Jack Moxley <jack at moxley.co.uk>:
> I have not seen any rudeness can we try and keep the emotions under wraps rather than using paranoid perceptions of inter-corporate rivalry to dismiss out of hand a fairly valid point?

Maybe it is just my bad english comprehension. Sorry about the
corporate perceptions.

The spec leaders  have already made crystal clear that some points, even valid
ones, are not being addressed in the lambda list, such as reified
generics, method literals, etc.

>
> On 13 Jun 2011, at 23:01, Paulo Silveira - Caelum <paulo.silveira at caelum.com.br> wrote:
>
>> 2011/6/9 Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com>:
>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> and while erased function types may seem better than nothing now, so did
>>>> erased generics way back when...
>>>>
>>>> If we can have reified function types in the
>>>> future, then this will be an obvious place to backfill this association.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And if we can't, then we'll regret not doing it today.
>>
>> We will regret if they try to reify generics in JSR 335. It probably
>> would take a lot of time and end up splitting Java (again) in Java 8
>> and 9, and having lambda only in Java 9+.
>>
>> The guys  here are doing an incredible work to have lambda not
>> delayed, and I really do not understand why Neal Gafter keeps being so
>> rude on the list. It is not the first time.
>>
>> This is a top-notch tech list, where we can lear a lot from the spec
>> leaders and experts, which are sharing everything they can. It is a
>> pity to have Google-Oracle tensions around.
>>
>> Paulo
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>