On Jun 1, 8:04 pm, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]> wrote: > So basically, this is just syntax sugar around single-method anonymous inner > classes. I'm not saying it's the end of the world, but they aren't closures > strictly speaking. Everything I ever read about what differentiates closures > from anonymous inner classes (control flow, lexical scoping) is untouched as > compared to what we do already with more verbose syntax.
Yeah that was my conclusion as well; that we will have to continue to put variables into a one-dim array in order to hoist it from stack to heap and avoid the annoying "final limitation". This does not match Neal Gafter's definition of a closure. Or did I misunderstand? -- 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.
