[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Closures

In article <200108141636.MAA07210@life.ai.mit.edu>,
Jeff Dalton  <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>The problem with that answer is that inner classes were defined (or at
>least explained) by code rewriting, and "shared binding" assignment
>can be implemented with some additional, reasonably straightforward,
>rewriting - in such a way that the "extra" run-time performance
>penalty when when you don't actually assign to the variable is zero.
>(It's essentially just the rewriting you have for Python but doing it
>only for the variables that need it.)
>
>Moreover, they didn't invent some "weird" different semantics,
>just said the variables had to be "final".
>
>So I think there was probably a substantial "don't care" about it:
>supporting "shared binging" assignment wasn't seen as important.
>

Hi, forgive me if I am being dense here, but could somebody please
give me a (preferably short) Java code fragment, that exposes the
"shared binding" assignment problem?

cheers, Bernhard
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernhard Pfahringer, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Waikato
http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~bernhard                  +64 7 838 4041
---------------------------------------------------------------------