Randall, Some members of the Scala team are on this list. I forward the key discussions to Martin, Lex, etc. I know they are aware of the discussions and have from time to time chimed in.
Thanks, David On 10/3/07, Randall R Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 03 October 2007 09:20, John Wilson wrote: > > ... > > > > I'm looking at a way of minimising the classes generated for closures > > and I'm thinking of compiling the closure body as a synthetic static > > method in the enclosing class. The Closure object would then be an > > instance of a generic closure class which dispatches to the static > > method via reflection. > > Again, (if you have not already) I recommend you open a discussion or > bring into this one Martin Odersky and / or other principals from the > Scala project. From my rather limited and naive understanding, they are > dealing with some of the very same issues. I'm pretty sure Scala has > the issue of large numbers of classes representing closures. > > In addition to cross-fertilizing implementation ideas, it seems that by > combining your voices you might have better luck prevailing upon those > that determine the JVM specifications to accommodate your needs. > > > > ... > > > > John Wilson > > > Randall Schulz > > > > -- lift, the secure, simple, powerful web framework http://liftweb.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" 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/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
