John Rose wrote: > On Sep 10, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > >> I'd expect you can have a single argument return converter that >> converts >> the value on the way out. Being able to convert only incoming >> arguments >> and not outgoing values wouldn't be useful. > > It's useful if the caller is expecting an Object (or any interface) > and the ultimate callee is producing a reference type. In that case, > there is no need for any conversion work in the return, and therefore > we can use a more efficient framless, tail-calling conversion. > > Of course the general case must deal with return value conversion > also. (I'm also keeping an open mind about support for multiple > value returns, eventually. The multiple values would be reified to a > ricochet adapter using the same ArgumentList type.)
Sure, I just meant that it would be silly to only have the ability to marshal arguments and not return values...or at least, it seemed like an obvious symmetry to me. - Charlie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
