Function types versus arrays

[Howard Lovatt]

If you have reified lambdas then you don't have a problem, if you have
erased lambdas then it is the same as generics. I would favor reified
lambdas so that the following happens:

#int()[] ils = new #int()[1];
ils[0] = #double() (1); // error

But if erased lambdas are used then you need a notation for the raw type of
a lambda, just like generics. Perhaps # on its own, e.g.:

#[] ls = new #[1];
ls = #double() (1); // ok
#int()[] ils = (#int()) new #[1]; // issues warning
ils = #double() (1); // error

On 8 February 2010 23:37, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It would be very odd if arrays of function types were not supported,
> > just not Java. The worry about ArrayStoreExceptions is in my
> > experience overstated, it is exceptionally rare and caught at runtime
> > anyway.
>
> The worry is the *absence* of ArrayStoreException when a lambda with
> the wrong type is placed into an array.  If we could make it safe at
> runtime by throwing ArrayStoreException, then I wouldn't be worried
> about allowing arrays of function type.
>



-- 
 -- Howard.