On Oct 27, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Bernhard Fastenrath wrote:
method pointers? closures?
Is anybody going to suggest self-modifying java assembler code as a
language feature?
I don't really see how you got from method pointers and closures to
self-modifying code (I see that as a bit of fear
Dain wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but do you believe that Sun could
actually get such a feature right?
I take your point, and tend to think not. I don't believe that Sun would
get it right first time, not if we consider their track record.
So, yes, I am arguing that no feature is
Where's the advantage of a method pointer?
Maybe Mr. Angus wasn't going here, but behind my
concept was work I have done in C/C++ with arrays
of function-through-pointer for varied functionality
depending on context.
Yes. It was in order to provide much more dynamic variation in behaviour,
Dain wrote:
If you want method pointers today, just get a good byte code generation
tool.
Yeah I know, and I seriously believe that workarounds such as this do more
to harm the so-called purity of Java than providing explicit language
level mechanisms for method pointers.
The AWT moved from
On Oct 27, 2004, at 1:10 AM, Danny Angus wrote:
Dain wrote:
If you want method pointers today, just get a good byte code
generation
tool.
Yeah I know, and I seriously believe that workarounds such as this do
more
to harm the so-called purity of Java than providing explicit language
level
12:53 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: Future JDK features 2 items
On Oct 27, 2004, at 1:10 AM, Danny Angus wrote:
Dain wrote:
If you want method pointers today, just get a good byte code
generation tool.
Yeah I know, and I seriously believe that workarounds such as this do
more
method pointers? closures?
Is anybody going to suggest self-modifying java assembler code as a
language feature?
Is the goal to break Java and render it useless?
In my opinion we can live without closures.
You didn't have to attach for a bit longer.
Jim Moore wrote:
The way that most modern
[Original Message]
From: Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10/26/04 3:17:32 AM
Subject: Future JDK features 2 items
1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers
But still, be sure to watch for flames from the
Purist Society! They _do_ have a
Dan Lydick wrote:
From: Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers
But still, be sure to watch for flames from the
Purist Society! They _do_ have a point, ya know.
I *know* it is possible to accomplish all the delegation one might want by
using
[Original Message]
From: Bernhard Fastenrath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10/26/04 2:09:02 PM
Subject: Re: FW: RE: Future JDK features 2 items
Dan Lydick wrote:
From: Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers
On Oct 26, 2004, at 1:17 AM, Danny Angus wrote:
1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers
If you want method pointers today, just get a good byte code generation
tool. We use cglib in Geronimo to generate FastMethod objects, which
look a lot like reflection Method but are about a 100 times faster
11 matches
Mail list logo
