return-from-lambda viewed as dangerous, good alternatives

[Mike Swingler]

On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Neal Gafter wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com> wrote:
> 
>> I don't think anyone is trying to redefine return. In Java return has always
>> meant "return this value (or no value)" from the invocation of this method.
>> I think that must be true whether the method is a lambda or or an ordinary
>> method. I just don't see a problem here.
>> 
>> I don't think this is an implementation consideration; I think it's
>> fundamental. We're considering adding function types to the language, which
>> define functions (AKA methods).
> 
> If we continue to misinform people and tell them that lambdas are
> methods in the context of this language feature, then it is true that
> the language should reflect that correspondence.  However, I believe
> it will be natural for programmers to become familiar with a language
> feature that is not grown out of this misinformation.

So what's the value to the ordinary developer to understand any more than "lamba's are just methods"? I really would like to understand the kinds of design patterns that will solve common tasks that is worth the conceptual overhead and losing the common understanding of "return".

~Mike