A syntax option (function types versus arrays)

[Peter Levart]

On Tuesday 02 March 2010 00:42:26 Neal Gafter wrote:
> > So can you comment on further grammar changes to allow
> > parentheses round the function type:
> >
> >   ((A throws X)->Y)[] y;  // Array of function-typed values
> 
> 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

What about casts? Double parens? Is it possible, fom syntax perspective, that for function types the cast would simply state a function type without additional parens?

CastExpression:
        ( ReferenceTypeNoFunctionType ) UnaryExpressionNotPlusMinus
        FunctionType UnaryExpressionNotPlusMinus


Regards, Peter