A syntax option (function types versus arrays)

[Mark Mahieu]

On 1 Mar 2010, at 23:42, Neal Gafter wrote:
> 
> I agree with Rémi that you don't need so many parens.  You could put
> the throws either before or after the result type.  I'd also suggest
> keeping the lambda and function type syntax forms parallel in part
> because the lambda is the primary, and currently only, way to get a
> value of function type.  For example either
> 
>    (String -> int throws SomeException) variable = (String x -> 3);
> 
> or, as Rémi suggests
> 
>    (String throws SomeException -> int) variable = (String x -> 3);
> 
> So the curry example would be something like
> 
>    static <T,U,V,X extends Throwable>
>    (T->(U throws X->V)) curry((T,U throws X->V) function) {
>        return (T t->(U u->function.(t,u)));
>    }
> 
> Cheers,
> Neal
> 

That's pretty good in my eyes - for these non-trivial types I think it's much easier to follow than the equivalent code using the currently proposed syntax.

It's easy to see where each function type or lambda begins and ends (and editors/IDEs will be able to offer matching bracket highlighting as they do elsewhere in the language).

Mark