CICE rules!! Joshua Bloch understands both computer languages and how people, normal people, understands them.
I actually can't understand how anyone could be against CICE. It is just a simplification of today and actually isn't in the way of the other more advanced (too advanced IMO) proposals. One could easily add CICE today and still include BGGA/FCM later. Of course, if CICE is added there will be less of a reason for adding the other ones, but that is a good thing in my book. I would add ARM as will btw. And real properties, defaults for method arguments and enhanced enhanced for loops. Cheers, Mikael Grev On Jan 12, 4:40 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't care which of the many closure proposals is adapted. As long > as one is. If you were to ask me, I'd pick CICE, but I'd rather have > BGGA, FCM, Lovatt's proposal, or "the Lasso proposal" (hah!). I wonder > how many other closure fans think this way. If most do, then the > current row about which one of the many proposals is 'the best one' > isn't a good reason to hold back. > > Posse listeners, what do you think? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
