On Sep 11, 2008, at 5:04 PM, John Rose wrote:

> On Sep 11, 2008, at 3:36 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> ...
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:42 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>> John Rose schrieb:
>>> It will dispatch exactly the way the reflective method does:
>>>  - no dispatch for static methods
>>>  - virtual dispatch for class methods
>>>  - interface dispatch for interface methods
>>
>> sure, yes... I would prefer a non virtual dispatch for class methods,
>> but I am used to it. What I did target was overloading.
>
> No, the java.dyn APIs do not help with overload resolution.  They  
> give you power to emulate all the invoke* bytecode instructions, but  
> not (directly) higher level concepts from Java.

Well, if that's needed, I already have a full emulation of javac  
overload resolution algorithm, written in Java code within my MOP  
project, operating on java.lang.reflect.Method objects... As  
originally implemented though, it allows you to call methods passing  
name and concrete parameters, but doesn't allow you to retrieve the  
matching method itself -- that's easy to remedy though, and something  
I plan on changing soon. I want to spend some of my forthcoming  
evenings on furthering the state of the art so that I have some  
interesting things to talk about two weeks from now at the summit :-)

(I'm currently wasting my evening on trying and failing to make bsd- 
port of OpenJDK build on my Mac, but if I didn't I'd be seeing if I  
can repurpose the MOP project to serve as a helper for invokedynamic  
implementors; allowing the cross-language interop by exposing services  
for language-independent MethodHandle resolution.)

Attila.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to