Yield +1
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 16, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> We’ve probably pretty much explored the options at this point; time to
> converge around one of the choices...
>
>>
>> De: "Brian Goetz"
>> À: "amber-spec-experts"
>> Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Mai 2019 21:38:38
On 5/16/2019 2:05 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
There are other contexts in which we limit what can be done w/r/t/
parenthesized expressions (since these are ambiguous with cast to
generic types). So this looks like another case where the grammar has to
say - sorry no parens here.
If you're
On 16/05/2019 21:46, John Rose wrote:
On May 16, 2019, at 1:34 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
On the other hand is a trivial one to resolve, given what we're discussing now
is something like
"yields" EXPRESSION
so, as soon as the compiler sees a "(" it will say: "ok, that's not a new
On 16/05/2019 21:04, Brian Goetz wrote:
The notion of “reserved word” is insufficiently precise. More
precisely, yield is a _reserved type identifier_, like `var`. That
means that you cannot have a class called `yield`, but you can have
local variables, or methods, or fields, or type
On May 16, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
> having `yield` as the junior member of that club is quite natural. Putting
> the junior and senior members side by side shows both similarity and
> difference:
If junior yield is allowed to help senior return with
his job, we have a more
The notion of “reserved word” is insufficiently precise. More precisely, yield
is a _reserved type identifier_, like `var`. That means that you cannot have a
class called `yield`, but you can have local variables, or methods, or fields,
or type variables, with that name.
See
FTR I'm OK with "yield". (I yield the floor?)
(And I'm OK with "pass", but we'll probably
pass on that option?)
The rule, I take it, is that `yield x;` would
deliver a value to the innermost enclosing
`->` operator. If it could be that simple,
that would be a win; we could teach our
eyes and
> On May 16, 2019, at 3:36 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
>
> On 5/16/2019 8:24 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> We’ve probably pretty much explored the options at this point; time to
>> converge around one of the choices...
>
> I am very happy with `yield` as the new construct for concluding the
>
On 5/16/2019 8:24 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
We’ve probably pretty much explored the options at this point; time to
converge around one of the choices...
I am very happy with `yield` as the new construct for concluding the
evaluation of a switch expression and leaving a value on the stack for
We’ve probably pretty much explored the options at this point; time to
converge around one of the choices...
>
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "amber-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Dimanche 12 Mai 2019 21:38:38
> Objet: Call for bikeshed -- break replacement in expression switch
> As mentioned in the
10 matches
Mail list logo
