Preparing for the 0.2 draft

[Stephen Colebourne]

On 29 January 2010 08:56, Alex Buckley <Alex.Buckley at sun.com> wrote:
> Many thanks for everyone's comments on the 0.1 draft. The "foo.()"
> invocation syntax looks like a winner
I can live with that, although I'd prefer a method name.

>, and I am seriously considering
> rearranging the function type syntax to have argument types first.
I haven't seen any form with the arguments first that I like.

> Requiring a lambda expression to denote its return type is also
> increasingly appealing.
That would be terrible! Please no!

> SAM classes are staying for now.
> The discussion of transparent 'this' v. non-transparent 'this' comes
> down to the question of what a lambda in Java is for.
These two points are linked. If you believe that a lambda is a
simplified inner class, then 'this' should be as per an inner class,
and subclassing SAM classes makes sense. I on the other hand believe
that a lambda is a new language construct, related to, but not the
same as an inner class, thus 'this' refers lexically and SAM classes
are not especially relevant.

Stats to follow in separate reply.
Stephen