A syntax option (function types versus arrays)

[Serge Boulay]

.net has something similar to what you describe. Take a look at  Func<> and
Action<>

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com>wrote:

> There has been a long discussion about the syntax for lambdas and no
> solution has been found, this was expressed nicely by Josh Bloch:
>
> > I agree that it would be nice if we had something that nests better, and
> I'm
> > totally open to suggestion.  But this alternative comes with many
> downsides:
> > surrounding a type in parens might appear tempting, but it really looks
> like
> > a cast to current-day Java programmers.  As per my previous e-mail, I'm
> all
> > about designing a facility that is maximally readable, familiar, and
> > non-threatening to current-day Java programmers.
>
> Also the distinction between the lambda type and the lambda isn't
> clear (I think that both Rémi Forax and Reinier Zwitserloot have
> raised this issue - though you can't search Lambda Dev so I can't be
> certain it was them!).
>
> A possible alternate syntax is:
>
> #< R( A ) throws E > example = new #< R( A a ) throws E >( ... );
>
> This syntax is in keeping with current Java, e.g.:
>
> #< R( A ) throws E > example = new #< R( A a ) throws E >( ... );
> ArrayList< Integer >  aList =      new ArrayList< Integer >();
>
> You can have arrays:
>
> #< R( A ) throws E >[] array = new #< R( A ) throws E >[ 1 ];
>
> You can nest lambdas:
>
> #< #< R() throws E >( #< R( A ) throws E >, A ) > curry = new #< #<
> R() throws E >( #< R( A ) throws E > l, A a ) >( l.( a ) );
>
>
>
> The two specific suggestions embodied in the examples above are:
>
> 1. Mimic the method declaration syntax minus the method name, like the
> current proposal does, but enclose that within angle brackets, to
> mimic a generic declaration.
>
> 2. Require new to be used when you create a Lambda, to mimic current
> Java declarations and to clearly distinguish between the type and the
> creation.
>
> Comments?
>
>  -- Howard.
>
>