On 5 jun, 07:15, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > Reply inline. > > On Jun 5, 5:18 am, opinali <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If you mean the requirement to capture unrestricted variables (not > > just final ones) > > It wasn't.
Ok, that was implied by the context of that email (quoted content 'heap and avoid the annoying "final limitation". This does not match Neal Gafter's definition of a closure'). Anyway, the debate now drifted to whether capturing a COPY of variables (or only capture their value) is sufficient. This patently absurd. Even if we have a new paradigm that favors avoidance of mutable variables (and I certainly subscribe to this), let's not play revisionism and redefine a classic, fundamental CS concept that was cast in stone forty years ago and which exact meaning was crystal- clear and NEVER debated... before some Java advocates appeared with nonsensical, bastardized closures. This kind of attitudes - both avoiding a no-brainer feature like true closures, and doing a half- assed attempt but claiming that it is a closure - makes Java the laughing stock of serious programming language designers. Just create a new term that is not "closure", and assume publicly that Java does not have closures and will never have closures. It's not like we are butchering live kitten or something. Well, almost. A+ Osvaldo -- 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.
