[External] : Re: Minor improvement to anonymous classes

[Brian Goetz]

> so when you use an anonymous class, the lifetime of the enclosing this is extended for no good reason.
> The usual issue it to have a code that relies on the finalizer to close a system resource (which is not a good idea) that fails to close the resource because the is captured by the anonymous class. Lambdas do not have this weird behavior.
>
> We have discussed about allowing static in front of a local class but there is no way to ask for a static anonymous class.

We've already laid the groundwork for that; the recent changes to allow 
for local interfaces/records/enums included some spec wording for static 
local members, even though you can't say `static` in all these places.  
I'd like to address this as part of a more comprehensive 
scoping-alignment; the inner-class thing seems mostly a separate (and 
small) feature.

> and i would prefer to keep that syntax available if at some point in 
> the future we decide to allow classes (or perhaps just record) to be 
> initialized in a literal way.

Agree, I think the "return on syntax" here is limited.