On Jan 14, 2019, at 12:49 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
>
> yes, i fully agree, it's just syntactic sugar on top of records and pattern
> matching.
> That's what's make the proposal great and stupid at the same time.
> It's great because it's just syntactic sugar and it's stupid because it's
>
- Mail original -
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "Lukas Eder" , "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Envoyé: Lundi 14 Janvier 2019 17:29:54
> Objet: Re: Multiple return values
> I was trying to keep my reply focused on
a call to map(), a type as
to be provided,
by example
aStream.map(x -> (x, x + 1)).collect(...)
Rémi
- Mail original -
De: "Brian Goetz"
À: "Lukas Eder"
Cc: "amber-spec-comments"
Envoyé: Vendredi 11 Janvier 2019 17:07:43
Objet: Re: Multiple return values
While
> Envoyé: Vendredi 11 Janvier 2019 17:07:43
> Objet: Re: Multiple return values
> While I understand where you’re coming from, I think multiple return is likely
> to be both more intrusive and less satisfying than it first appears.
>
> First, it’s a relatively deep cut; it goes
While I understand where you’re coming from, I think multiple return is likely
to be both more intrusive and less satisfying than it first appears.
First, it’s a relatively deep cut; it goes all the way down to method
descriptors, since methods in the JVM can only return a single thing. So
Received on the comments list.
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Lukas Eder
> Subject: Multiple return values
> Date: January 11, 2019 at 10:57:19 AM EST
> To: amber-spec-comme...@openjdk.java.net
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm referring to the exciting proposed new
