On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Christian Thalinger
wrote:
> That sounds good. Any time-frame when you get to do it? I'd like to
> use JRuby again as testing kit for our latest changes.
I pushed changes to JRuby yesterday that allow it to compile and run
against current indy stuff. Hopefully I
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 15:14 -0500, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Christian Thalinger
> wrote:
> > That sounds good. Any time-frame when you get to do it? I'd like to
> > use JRuby again as testing kit for our latest changes.
>
> I pushed changes to JRuby yester
Changeset: 022c417e0094
Author:jrose
Date: 2010-09-15 01:17 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/mlvm/mlvm/hotspot/rev/022c417e0094
meth: add an N-ary version of the MethodApply feature
! meth-bcon-6984311.patch
+ meth-bcon-nary.patch
! series
Changeset: 4c80d5b4cbff
Author:jrose
Date: 2010-09-29 15:47 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/mlvm/mlvm/jdk/rev/4c80d5b4cbff
meth-cval: update javadoc, add test for javadoc example
! meth-cval-6982752.patch
___
mlvm-dev mailing list
I'm interested into (at least) evaluating MethodHandles for
Kawa (and similar languages with first-class functions).
But I'm not quite sure where to start, or what is the right
abstraction.
Kawa's function implementation is fairly efficient. Calls
to known functions compile to direct method calls
On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Per Bothner wrote:
> Fundamentally, the question is: When the Scheme programmer passes
> of function to a higher-level function (like map), what is the type
> of the object passed: A MethodHandle? A Procedure? Something else?
> There seem to be different kind of Meth
