Getting around the declaration could be handled by an "anonymous struct" variation, which would start to look rather close to .NET's anonymous types :-)
...and then Buffy staked Edward. The End. On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]>wrote: > Would take much more fancy dancing in the JVM spec (compared to > Tuples, which is pretty much JVM independent), so its a bit heavier in > that sense, but its not bad. I bet some people are going to get > annoyed at the notion that you need to define a struct separately, but > personally an extra line or two, as long as its short, sweet, and to > the point, is good. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
