A syntax option (function types versus arrays)

[Howard Lovatt]

Thanks - I will do that in future

On 12 March 2010 04:26, Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com> wrote:
> Howard Lovatt 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!).
>>
>
> Using "site:http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-dev" with a
> popular search engine makes the mailing list searchable.
>
> -Joe
>



-- 
  -- Howard.