[concurrency-interest] Ops type names

Doug Lea dl at cs.oswego.edu
Tue Jan 15 08:50:31 EST 2008

Neal Gafter wrote:
> I wonder if we could provide some sort of small language extension to 
> make these names easier to remember, write, and read. So, for example, 
> instead of making people write
> Ops.ObjectAndIntToObject<? Super String, ? extends Student>
> we could allow them to alternatively indicate the type by writing some 
> syntax like
> { String, int => Student }
> or
> ( String, int ) => Student

Note to others: I assume you are all keeping up with the various
controversies about closure and function type syntax. If for some
reason you've been hiding in a cave and don't know what this
is about, see Neal's blog http://gafter.blogspot.com/ among
too many other places.

What many of you don't know though is that discussions
with Neal, Josh, and others of my initial plans for parallel
APIs (including ParallelArray) two years ago were among the main
instigators in creating all this controversy. As we continue
to get components into usable form, and some of you use them,
opinions based on real experience are among the most valuable
inputs when making decisions about language changes.
I encourage those of you using this stuff to participate in
these discussions. (Although probably best in blogs, blog
comments, or discussions elsewhere, not usually on this
concurrency-interest list unless it has something to do
with the concurrency aspects themselves.)


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list