Rémi Forax wrote: > 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.
I suppose this is where a standardization process comes in handy :) I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile multiple proposed Java languages changes that all want to use #. We have precious few symbols on a standard keyboard. One criteria might be the likelihood of a proposal making it into Java 7; that would mean indy gets to use # for tooling purposes. But indy doesn't also include Java language changes, does it? So this would only be a third-party extension to javac, not standard in the language. I personally like the # for dynamic dispatch quite a bit since multiple dynlangs use it to identify methods (Rubyists frequently refer to methods like String#to_s). It does occur to me that these various uses may be basically the same. Perhaps # with an identifier and no () would be your property syntax or BGGA method reference syntax (perhaps eventually to be method handle syntax?) and # with an identifier and () would be invocation syntax? - Charlie _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
