Method calls vs lambda calls

[Stefan Schulz]

Howard Lovatt wrote:
>> If function-typed variables are in the method name scope, why should not
>> ft be overridden in the same way that f is overridden?
>
> Alex Blewitt also touched on this point, you can't actually make a
> method called ft because you could assign a different lambda to it
> which would require the methods body to change. As I said in the
> previous post you could do this via something like properties (which
> have to be fields), e.g. assume that properties were automatically
> generated by the compiler (like Scala) and that when you wrote:

I didn't say anything about making a method. If the short-hand 
invocation syntax is allowed, putting names of function-typed variables 
in the same (scope-relative) space like methods is a way to ensure not 
to have methods and function-typed variables with the same name. As this 
has to hold for inheritance, too, I do not see a problem in 
function-typed variables of subclasses to @Override those of a 
superclass, as the information is already there. (Of course, they must 
additionally hide normal variables having the same name.)

> All in all, I think it best to forget about function-type variables altogether.

Without function-types, lambda functions are of very reduced use.

Stefan