On 10/21/07, hlovatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Therefore using Correspondence as an argument for a JVM extension to > support return etc. from within closures is weak, since Tennent > argued, using his own principle, that the correct answer is not to > have return etc.
I don't think removing return from the Java Programming Language is an option. It is best to introduce as few new violations of the principle as possible. Two wrongs don't make a right. A compromise position is to allow return etc. but require them to name > the block they are returning from (like break and continue currently > do but also extend the naming to include method names). Then at least > the action of the block is clearly flagged, e.g.: We are already looking at allowing labelled closure returns in the Java Closures spec (and have a draft spec for it). Nevertheless, as a separate issue exceptions outside Throwable are still needed. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
