Casper Bang wrote: > Yeah it's confusing, what made them suddenly change their mind? And > doesn't this kinda portrait Coin as a joke (not wanting to touch the > type system, only small changes etc.). It feels like a last minute > 180, perhaps an attempt to keep up and not be characterized as a > legacy language? (which the blogosphere has been saturated with the > last couple of years) > RIght.
BTW, it took a while for me to realize that the closures they're talking about are neither BGGA nor CICE, but rather a simpler version based on a proposal of Stephen Couleborne and Stefan Schulz. I've just read it - I appreciate the minimalistic approach and it makes me worry much less than BGGA - but it's not a finished proposal: I understand that there are still some issues *in the specifications* to be resolved. So, we're switching from "only small changes" to "let's put in a thing that is not yet finished". Perhaps they plan to postpone the release? -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people [email protected] -- 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=.
