On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:27:20 PM UTC+2, KWright wrote: > > Void isn't quite right though. It corresponds to "return, but with no > useful information", which isn't the same thing as not returning at all.
Why the interest in modeling "not returning at all"? Isn't that mostly interesting to people studying the halting problem? I'm strictly interested in modelling "return with nothing" and "return with something", what else is there but blocking the thread or looping indefinitely? A compiler seeing generic capture of Void, could allow an implicit return clause (as is the case with the void keyword) and furthermore optimize stack push/pop away (rather than boxing null). It seems like the issue is going to come up much more, when/if closures are introduced. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/stvfA5tJ4vMJ. 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.
