My only problem with this, is to my knowledge we have invented the
"pure closure" terminology. Again, this would be akin to my claiming
that Java has had varargs since day one. You could always pass object
arrays, after all. Nobody, to my knowledge, ever claimed those were
the same thing. (I'm sure someone out there did.)
That is, you seem to be claiming that java 1.3 had varargs because you
could have written the method:
String.format("%s", new Object[] { someObject });
This is just a minor inconvenience over the new syntax that allows
varargs, but that small change means everything. Same goes for
function literals. I confess that I can not think of too many places
where I would miss full closures. About the best I can think is in a
for comprehension style thing, where you can drop the necessity for
determining all of the arguments that the inner "lambda" needs, as it
can just capture the surrounding variables. And, as pointed out, you
could just move the indirection to the object being held. (Not sure
this really looks any better at all.)
--
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.
