Le 22/06/2010 12:48, Howard Lovatt a écrit : > A couple of comments on the current MethodHandle API: > > 1. Having only one bootstrap method for InvokeDynamic is a bit > limiting, it it possible to have one per use site? >
It's an open issue, we're working on it. > 2. Has thought been given to using the .( args ) notation (or what > ever it ends up as) from lambda dev for invokeGeneric( args )? > My opinion is that the lambda spec has to mature a little bit before looking at this kind of things. Currently, the lambda super type is not MethodHandle but Object > 3. Are there plans to add MethodHandle literals, e.g. Class#method( types )? > The mlvm workspace already contains method handle literals :) > 4. Assuming 3 above; are there plans for a binding literal, e.g. > MethodHandle addA = String#concat( String, "A" )? > > As far as I know, No. I don't think it worth the introduction of a new syntax MethodHandle addA = insertArguments(String#concat( String, String ), 1, "A"); Morever, your proposed syntax has a bad property. It allow type and expression to occur at the same place. > I am sure these items have been already discussed in the expert group, > just wondering what the latest thinking is. > > -- Howard. > cheers, Rémi _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
