Effectively final

[Llewellyn Falco]

>Sorry, Llewellen, wrong again.
Since we are going to get to details, let's start with my name is
"Llewellyn"

> Lambdas are functions.  Functions are not objects.
> You are right that as currently specified for Java SE 8, lambdas happen to
always get SAM-converted to instances of classes.  That's as far as you can
take this statement.
I was under the impression that "an instance of a class" was the definition
of an Object, is that incorrect?

> A good way to think of this is as a boxing conversion; the lambda gets
boxed into a SAM.
By this logic, an autoboxed int would not be an object either, and yet
public void foo(Integer i)
{
  System.out.print(i.byteValue());
}
works even when called with an int. it's almost as if it has become an
object.

>Currently, there is no way to denote the unboxed lambda, but that doesn't
make them the same thing.
>(If you want to think "lambdas are objects" because that makes it simpler,
feel free to, but please don't confuse everyone else with your
approximations.)
If there is no way to denote an unboxed lambda, then you MUST denote it as
an Object. This is not an approximation, it is a reality. You might feel
that reality is confining, but there is no escaping it. Moreover, There is
simply NO WAY in the current spec to say:

public void MethodThatOnlyAcceptsLambdas(???? lambda)

therefore, everything that consumes a lambdas MUST accept that they can be
called with plain old 'never been autoboxed' objects. This means there is no
contract in the language to say "immutable objects only"


In short, as long as the following code is allowed


abstract class ThisIsAnObject
{
   int counter = 0;
   public int next(){  return counter++;}
   public string foo();
}


ThisIsAnObject o = #{"clicked" + next() + "times};

Has this code been disallowed?
If not, Lambdas are objects.

what about??

Runnable r = #{ System.out.println(this.toString()); }

and if this is still legal, what is your explanation about the meaning of
"this" in a function that is not an object?


For that matter, as long as this still compiles


for(int i = 1; i < 10; i++)
{
    final int currentValue = i;
    Runnable r = #{ System.out.println("foo" + currentValue); }
}

You now have an instance of a class with member variables.... which is an
object.

and once you have this, I don't think you'll be able to take it away... Has
Java ever Removed functionality in latter versions?

I can understand that you might not like this reality, but that doesn't make
it less correct. Right now you seem to have the view that if we just ignore
the current state and focus on where you want java to go in the future that
will help it to get there.

I can only say that technique has not been successful for myself, and might
explain some of the frustration I have had on this list


Llewellyn Falco