On 31 May 2001 12:56:17 GMT, kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com () wrote:
>In article <9f5avq$9ls$1@soapbox.cs.bham.ac.uk>,
> Aaron.Sloman.XX@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman See text for reply address) writes:
>
>> I don't know how anonymous classes work in Java,
(snip)
>> (b) efficiency because global identifiers don't need to be created
>
>Certainly not true for Java classes!
Is that right? I don't know what the output of a Java compiler looks
like, and you do say
>I'm not sure the existing language design and implementation constraints
>(eg it must compile to code that works on the older JVMs) left them
>much room for manoeuver).
so I can believe it, but it is not obvious that an anonymous class
would need a global identifier, so I may be misreading an ambiguity
in what you wrote.
(Or, to put that another way, I bet it is possible to for a
sufficiently clever Java compiler to avoid generating a global name,
for sufficiently large values of "sufficiently clever" :-).
Jonathan
--
Jonathan L Cunningham
|