Re: Embed E in Java

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Oct 21, 2009, at 13:25, Mark Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> MarkM: Is there a non-historical reason NestedException/
> >> NestedThrowable/etc exist instead of using the Java 1.4
> >> Throwable.getCause() mechanism?
> >
> > Mostly history. The NestedException,.. mechanism predates Java 1.4.
> > Since it worked, I have never examined the new getCause() API. I do
> > not know whether or not it would be safe to use instead.
>
> I believe I understand it sufficiently well to say that it is safe and
> appropriate to use instead. I propose to change E-on-Java to replace
> the Nested* mechanisms (backwards compatibly, i.e. the .leaf() sugar
> and so on will still exist) with causes.
>
> * What is the minimum Java version E-on-Java is intended to require?
>
> 1.4. Yes, I realize that contradicts my paragraph quoted above. I have no
objections to moving E-on-Java's dependencies forward to 1.5. Does anyone
else see any reasons to stay with 1.4 for now?


> * Do you have any reason to suspect that getCause() etc. may be less
> straightforward than it appears?
>
> No.



> * Do you object to this proposed change for any other reason?
>
> No.

Btw, one big potential benefit of moving towards 1.5 is that we could start
making parts of E-on-Java be Joe-E safe. Ultimately, except for a small
powerbox, it might be good for E-on-Java to become E-on-Joe-E.
Unfortunately, for this to happen, we'd need to start to use Java's generics
(parameterized typed) within the E implementation, at an enormous cost in
readability and reviewability. I do not yet understand how practical it is
to use Joe-E while avoiding generics.

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

   Cheers,
   --MarkM

_______________________________________________
e-lang mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang