Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. The BGGA implementation hasn't changed because it is complete. Complete meaning it properly implements ALL of the features of its specification (including break, continue, return, etc), and a few features not yet in the specification (method references, for example). See, for example, Mark Mahieu's concurrent for-each loop API here: http://markmahieu.blogspot.com/2008/08/for-eachconcurrently.html
Although I believe the syntax is not ideal in its current form, I'm not going to spend more time on it until Sun formally decides they want to move forward with it, and that's not going to happen in JDK7. On Jan 27, 4:23 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as closures go - just give me a month. I'm working on a uniting > proposal that should make everyone happy. At least, everyone that > likes one of the many closure proposals out there. Especially now that > BGGA is effectively out on its arse due to Gafter leaving and the > other letters in BGGA stopped caring long ago. The prototype's last > commit was 5 months ago, and it still doesn't properly do long returns/ > breaks/continues, one of the two main reasons why BGGA exists in the > first place. Even though it looks like the closure horse has been well > beaten to death, I actually think its still for a lack of leadership > that there's no consensus. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
