Hi John Thanks for sharing the update.
> * When the final spec. is presented, it will include whichever > features are ready. Ready means "fully specified"? The EG has to produce an RI, correct? If so, would that be MLVM patches to HotSpot? > What do language implementors want? > * Short list: Invokedynamic, method handles, continuations. I was surprised to read this--I'd thought that tail recursion was higher on people's list than continuations...was there any discussion of TCO? Also, I'd read from a couple of language implementors (Charles N among them, in http://headius.blogspot.com/2008/05/power-of-jvm.html, as well as the maintainer of Pnuts, in http://www.jroller.com/tomatsu/entry/i_don_t_need_invokedynamic) that invokedynamic wouldn't help them much--note I don't want to put words in the mouths of the respective speakers, I've just read this POV a handful of times. Does the EG still believe this is useful? Perhaps "it seemed like a good idea at the time"...? Thanks again Patrick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
