A syntax option (function types versus arrays)

[Joshua Bloch]

Peter,

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at marand.si>wrote:

>
> > >    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)));
> > >    }
> <snip>
> >
> > 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.
>
   <snip>

Beauty is in the eye of the  beholder.  It doesn't look at all like Java to
me, and that's a Cardinal when extending a language.  Our primary goal is to
design a facility that's recognizable and comfortable to current-day Java
programmers.

>
> I also think that it is good that this syntax doesn't abuse '#' for yet
> another thing. There's already non-java identifiers and method references
> that use it. Adding function types and lambdas to the mix increases
> confusion as everything looks similar.


But the language doesn't have method references.  And non-Java identifiers
aren't supposed to occur in programs that humans will be reading, only in
machine generated code.

In sum, I don't find these arguments all that convincing.

    Josh