Method references with types [Re: lambda syntax tutorial]

[Brian Goetz]

It has been mentioned, but only on whiteboards so far :)

We are for this reason considering #foo.bar() instead of #foo.bar.  We are 
also considering a greedy prefix syntax instead of infix.

On 8/5/2010 3:57 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> No one has yet mentioned another danger with using Foo#bar instead of
> Foo#bar(String).
>
> The former choice at this point closes off options in the future for Java.
>
> Foo#bar is the only sensible syntax for a field literal. Java can have
> both fields and methods with the same name. This has the potential to
> be a limitation to future language development.
>
> If there is a positive decision here today that field literals will
> never be added (and that any future property literals will never
> clash) then fine, but that seems like a strong statement at this
> point.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On 5 August 2010 19:08, Nathan Bryant<nathan.bryant at linkshare.com>  wrote:
>> Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
>> Ø  For example, if Foo#bar has no contextual smarts at all, then adding overload #2 of any method would always be source-incompatible (which would be hideous!).  So how much intelligence does it have?
>>
>>
>>
>> The worst-case of overloading always producing breakage can be ruled out; the set of possible overloads can only include those that have SAM types that are compatible with any of the overloads of Foo#bar .
>>
>>
>>
>>  From there, resolution should proceed in the usual way (most specific wins, or else the programmer must disambiguate.)
>>
>>
>>
>> In order for the worst ambiguities to arise, Foo.bar and the target method must both be overloaded. Is this really that common of a case? Any lesser ambiguities are the ones that can also arise with the lambda parameter type inference that is already implemented.
>>
>>
>>
>