How about a combo?

[Pavel Minaev]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
> You've got it backwards.  The "diamond operator" goes on the "new"
> expression, not the left-hand-side.

My mistake, sorry.

> And the "throws" goes on a function type, not a lambda expression.

That was intentional. The idea is that lambda expression fully spells
out its own type, including exception specification. Whether this is a
good idea, or it should be optional (but still allowed, and checked
for correctness if present), or it is better to infer it in all
scenarios and disallow explicit exception specification altogether, is
a valid but separate question.

> Other than that, I can't make heads nor tails of this proposal.

Do you refer to the type inference bit, or to the proposal in general?

If the latter, can you be more specific as to what seems troublesome?