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
___
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
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
Le 04/10/2009 11:39, Christian Thalinger a écrit :
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
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
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 15:40, Rémi Forax fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
Le 04/10/2009 11:39, Christian Thalinger a écrit :
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
