A syntax option (function types versus arrays)

[Peter Levart]

On Tuesday 02 March 2010 03:01:40 Joshua Bloch wrote:
> Neal,
> 
> I don't find this argument convincing. As I understand it, you're saying
> that function types and disjunction types will have the same level of
> runtime support as generics. So they should have the same level of
> expressiveness as well: it should be possible to describe, but not create
> (except implicitly for varargs) arrays of these types.
> 
>    Josh
> 

The same level of expressiveness could be achived if we had a denotable form of common function supertype: FT (which could be different in syntax from function types in general).

In analogy with the following:

new List<String>[10]    // illegal
new List[10]   // legal

The function types variant:

new (int -> int)[10]   // illegal
new FT[10]   // legal


I wouldn't equate FT with MethodHandle since that would be an implementation detail. I wouldn't equate it with a marker interface either. The specification could just define it as a way to create arrays of raw function type. But is this any better than new Object[] ?

Regards, Peter