hg: lambda/lambda/langtools: Next round of implementation reflecting the latest 'State of the Lambda' draft; implemented features are:

[Nathan Bryant]

Neal Gafter wrote:

> ... I prefer that we define a subtype relation
> between lambda expressions and object types (SAM types and function
> types) and use that for overload resolution as usual.  That is the
> approach that BGGA takes.

Does this mean that the following is always ambiguous?

interface Block<T> {
	void do(T t);
}

interface SpecializedBlock<T> extends Block<T> {
}

class Foo {
void forEach(Function<T> f) {
}

void forEach(SpecializedFunction<T> f) {
}
}

new Foo().forEach(#(f) {//something});

According to the usual rules, we resolve the call to
forEach(SpecializedFunction), but in a great many cases this is exactly
the opposite of what the user would intend.