It looks like anonymous class provides the basic functionality of closure, is that true?
It looks like anonymous class provides the basic functionality of closure, is that true?
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
It looks like anonymous class provides the basic functionality of closure, is that true?
As far as they both affect otherwise “private” scoping, in a very limited sense, yes. however, there are so many differences that the answer might as well be no.
Since Java lacks the ability to handle blocks of code as true R-values, inner classes cannot pass blocks of code as is typically done in continuations. Therefore the closure as a continuation technique is completely missing.
While the lifetime of a class to be garbage collected is extended by people holding inner classes (similar to closures keeping variables alive while being rebound to the closure), the ability of Java to do renaming via binding is limited to comply with the existing Java syntax.
And to allow threads to properly not stomp over each other’s data using Java’s thread contention model, inner classes are further restricted with access to data that is guaranteed not to upset, aka final locals.
This completely ignores the other inner classes (aka static inner classes) which is slightly different in feel. In other words, it touches upon a few items that closures could handle, but falls short of the minimum requirements that most people would consider necessary to be called a closure.