I would name it javax.dyn.
-Ulf
Am 04.10.2009 06:43, Paul Benedict schrieb:
I've always found it a bit perplexing that java.lang was never chosen
for the parent package of the Dynamic API. Why is that? Dynamic types
are now part of the language as proven by spec itself and exotic
identifiers.
On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Stepan Koltsov wrote:
John, how about multi-language java.lang.Class or
java.lang.reflect.Field?
How about it? I don't know how to answer this. -- John
John, how about multi-language java.lang.Class or java.lang.reflect.Field?
S.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 19:12, John Rose john.r...@sun.com wrote:
Thanks, Ben; well said. Putting a multi-language JVM feature under
java.lang would be the wrong signal. OTOH, if we ever do a type
Dynamic in the
I think this is somewhat of a red herring.
After all, there are many classes which live in java.lang which are
fundamental to the operation of the platform, and which any language which
lived on top of the VM would have an intimate relationship with (eg Object,
Class, String, etc).
If we are
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 23:43 -0500, Paul Benedict wrote:
I've always found it a bit perplexing that java.lang was never chosen
for the parent package of the Dynamic API. Why is that? Dynamic types
are now part of the language as proven by spec itself and exotic
identifiers. Will this be
I thought the language was being modified to make Dynamic exempt
from type-checking rules. The way I look at it, grammar is the
underpinnings of language. To read the grammar is analogous to
compiling the source -- both are about making sense of tokens. With
the introduction of Dynamic, I have to
Stepan,
That is a very good observation. I wonder what others have to say
about it? As you pointed out, there are other java.lang.* sub-packages
that have no impact on the Java language.
I am in agreement that java.dyn is closer to the language than not --
hence I think java.lang.dyn is natural.
I've always found it a bit perplexing that java.lang was never chosen
for the parent package of the Dynamic API. Why is that? Dynamic types
are now part of the language as proven by spec itself and exotic
identifiers. Will this be reconsidered?
Paul
