On Oct 22, 11:46 am, "Neal Gafter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are already looking at allowing labelled closure returns in the Java > Closures spec (and have a draft spec for it).
I am glad to hear that you are considering this, I think it is the way to go. (As you know I have advocated named returns etc. for some time, EG http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=182412) Now all I need to do is to convince you to base your closures on normal inner classes <- this comment is meant in jest, it isn't a dig at you > Nevertheless, as a separate > issue exceptions outside Throwable are still needed. I agree that there are some advantages, but question whether it is really worth the trouble (i.e. the cost penalty ratio doesn't seem that good to me). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
