Support Forums: Message List - JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Wed, 11 Dec 2002 06:00:26 -0500

what is BTW? ...

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Mon, 09 Dec 2002 05:29:20 -0500

It's not clear to me wether this Enumeration and foreach enhancements will generalize over Collections AND arrays. That's a thing that I think is very elegant in C#....

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Sun, 08 Dec 2002 22:04:59 -0500

I think that last question should be "A real IDE that won't

> require small ISVs to take out a second mortgage to buy?"

www.eclipse.org

Tom

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Sat, 07 Dec 2002 06:59:08 -0500

How about handling the obvious too. I've done a remendous amount of Boolean as a return type from a function and having to do...

Need to add using() as well?

Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:16:20 -0500

Actually, you can already do something like that with anonymous classes, which would not introduce anything new to the language and deal with the problem (for example see Nick Minutello's post) - that is, as long as you either subclass List yourself or...

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:03:36 -0500

Yep, but given the substituion principle of the OO, I can be happy (and am in a lot of cases) to consider two things the same (for some purpose) even if one is a subclass of the other....

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:58:12 -0500

But I can still write an LLR parser that disambiguates the two without any problems- because "String s: c" is not a valid argument list, so I just need to do a lookahead....

Need to add using() as well?

Fri, 06 Dec 2002 04:30:18 -0500

...

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:33:38 -0500

i think they mean backwards compatibility in a different way than what you are describing....

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:48:25 -0500

...

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:14:39 -0500

Just a clarification...

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:08:26 -0500

What is the big issue with adding a new keyword if it

...

const in Java (global optimizations)

Thu, 05 Dec 2002 14:55:28 -0500

I'd like to see this as well, but since then I had a closer look at JLS/JVM spec and understand why it's a no-go at the moment....

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Thu, 05 Dec 2002 14:49:39 -0500

How is a different keyword different from a new syntax inside the keyword? Both break backwards compatibility in exactly the same way....

JSR 201: Autoboxing, Enumerations, for(each) and Static Imports

Thu, 05 Dec 2002 14:45:19 -0500

Backwards compatability is an issue, but I do wish people would stop making it the be all and end all of everything....