Charles Oliver Nutter a écrit : > � wrote: > >> John, >> I am not a big fan of the exotic identifier proposal mostly because >> i doesn't understand the need and because using '#' creates conflicts >> with several closure proposal (BGGA and CICE) and my modest >> property proposal. >> > > Can you give examples? I haven't looked at BGGA but I didn't remember it > using # anywhere. # is used to reference method, it's an equivalent to MethodHandles.find*, techinaclly it's not in the spec but already int the prototype implementation see http://www.javac.info/PrototypeDifferences.html.
You can find more examples here: http://tronicek.blogspot.com/2008/03/method-references-version-2008-03-17.html > And an example of your proposal too? > My property proposal is available here: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfhbvdfw_1f7mzf2 # is used to get a reified object corresponding to a property. > >> Correct me if i'm wrong, you need exotic identifiers if you are >> a language developer that want to implement a part of the >> langage runtime in Java. But if you are a language developer, >> you control the compiler of that language so you can lookup >> for extra meta-data when you want to call a method, a field >> or a class written in Java. >> By example, these metadata can be implemented using annotations >> with no problem. >> > > I think the problem, however, is that not all language impls will only > ever want to do invokedynamic from that language's code; we may also > want to do it from Java for simplicity of implementation. > I have no problem with the patch that allow javac to emit invokedynamic bytecode. I am even a strong supporter of this patch. I have more doubts with the patch that allow exotic identifiers. > - Charlie > Rémi _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
