On Jan 21, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile multiple proposed Java
languages
changes that all want to use #.
The exotic identifiers proposal does not conflict with any use of
hash '#' (that I am aware of) as a separator or operator. That's
because an exotic identifier is introduced by the two character
sequence hash-quote '#"'. It interferes with other uses of hash '#'
as much as it interferes with other uses of quote '"': That is, not
at all.
On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
I am not a big fan of the exotic identifier proposal mostly because
i doesn't understand the need
As Charlie pointed out, along with the Dynamic.foo() syntax, exotic
identifiers allow Java to make direct calls to other languages.
E.g., Dynamic.#"setcar!"(aCons, aValue) as well as Dynamic.list(aValue).
A second point: I know that annotations are the current state of the
art for assigning non-Java names to definitions. But I think exotic
identifiers will provide, in many new cases, a smoother way to allow
Java to define names which are directly usable from non-Java languages.
and because using '#' creates conflicts
with several closure proposal (BGGA and CICE) and my modest
property proposal.
See above. For example, a proposed expression Author#name could be
harmlessly requoted as #"Author"##"name". The example is
intentionally bad style, but there is no ambiguity. At worst, an
operator "##" (is anybody suggesting one?) would be lexically
ambiguous if immediately followed by a string literal; the solution
(as with all such ambiguities) is to introduce a space to separate
the intended tokens.
-- John
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
