hehehehe successful troll was successful ;) What prompted me about this was Dick's comment (not that specific issue, but the response about it). I was also looking at some new C# and I barely recognised it from the old one - (but wasn't such a bad thing, I could still read it).
Perhaps the attitude to backwards compatability was always that something *new* should replace it, thus never needing to break or evolve. On Jan 28, 1:33 am, Hairless_ape <[email protected]> wrote: > We need to add something to Java. Closures is something, therefore we > must add closures to Java. > > Stop this destructive line of thought against closures or you will get > 5 days in the Dick Wall room. > (Oh and references to the Dick Wall room will NEVER get old) > > On Jan 27, 10:47 am, Christian Catchpole <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > How much resource (inside and outside of Sun) has been expended going > > over and over the multiple options for closures? I fear there is no > > balance to the force. * > > > * And here I was thinking I would never make a geeky star wars > > reference. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
