Rémi,
Many thanks, collectArguments was indeed the bug. My multiple dispatch
example is now working.
As an aside I am still surprised that neither collectArguments or the
call to the MethodHandle threw an exception.
-- Howard.
On 21 June 2010 18:15, Rémi Forax fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
I
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?
2. Has thought been given to using the .( args ) notation (or what
ever it ends up as) from lambda dev for invokeGeneric( args )?
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
Le 22/06/2010 12:40, Howard Lovatt a écrit :
Rémi,
Many thanks, collectArguments was indeed the bug. My multiple dispatch
example is now working.
As an aside I am still surprised that neither collectArguments or the
call to the MethodHandle threw an exception.
-- Howard.
It's a
On Jun 22, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
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
Le 22/06/2010 22:46, John Rose a écrit :
On Jun 22, 2010, at 1:32 PM, John Rose wrote:
The small amount of support in javac for 292 is a low-level punch-through to
allow assembly-level programming.
A little more detail: Here's the sort of thing I'm experimenting with, for
On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
There is another possible design.
Allow users to create fake types like java.dyn.Invokedynamic
and define the annotation on that type.
I'd rather not let the magic signature polymorphism escape beyond the current
set of names (InvokeDynamic and
Le 22/06/2010 23:29, John Rose a écrit :
On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
There is another possible design.
Allow users to create fake types like java.dyn.Invokedynamic
and define the annotation on that type.
I'd rather not let the magic signature polymorphism
On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Howard Lovatt wrote:
I don't think there is confusion between a type name and a value,
therefore proposed syntax OK (but maybe not the preferred). If you
want a class you have to append '.class'.
Sorry, that would be a breaking change to the language, not an
