On 10/20/07, Mark Derricutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In this work your doing are there any provisions for determining the > current position in the loop? i.e. is there anything coming after me? > > An example from some code I was just fixing up was taking a list of class > names and combining them into a ; delimited string (and erroneously > appending a trailing separator), without knowing the current position, or if > something follows you one has to manually keep track of position to > optionally append a ; rather than just call say ' iterator.hasNext()" > inside the loop. > > With the syntax below, it would be nice if a new implicit variable was > available which gave up such info...
These loops are library methods, not separate looping language extensions. Closures just make it possible for programmers to define them. One can easily make a looping method that has an index or that exposes an iterator. On 10/20/07, hlovatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it really necessary to have a new feature. I would of thought a > convention that you don't catch something derived from Jump was > sufficient. A new exception hierarchy outside Throwable is necessary for closures to satisfy Tennent's Correspondence Principle, which as you know is a powerful litmus test for the expressive power of a language feature such as closures. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
