Playing with new compiler

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On 02/06/11 04:52, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
> Hi Maurizio,
> Is not this ambiguous?
This one should - but your original example contained a cast to Object, 
which made the first candidate inapplicable.

Maurizio
>
> call(#{ x ->  System.out.println(x);  return null; }); //prints
> "SAM1" ?????
> Candidates:  SAM<R,A>, SAM1
>     static interface SAM1 {
>          String m1(Integer n);
>     }
>
>      static interface SAM<R,A>  {
>          R m(A n);
>     }
>
> Best Regards,
> Ali Ebrahimi
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore 
> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com 
> <mailto:maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Ali,
>     the following looks problematic [the lambda expression is void
>     compatible, so it should not be possible to convert it to a SAM
>     descriptor returning String. The rest looks good to me (including
>     the message that says 'cyclic inference'). We are discussing as to
>     whether, in cases of cyclic inference, inference variables should
>     be instantiated eagerly or not (i.e. to Object) so that method
>     applicability check can continue. For now, the compiler is
>     conservative, and does not attempt to attribute a lambda body
>     until the type of the lambda parameters are fully known/inferred.
>
>     Maurizio
>
>
>     On 25/05/11 08:21, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
>
>         call(#{ x ->  System.out.println(x);});    /* compile :
>         reference to call is ambiguous, both method call(SAM1) in
>         AMBTest and
>         method call(SAM2) in AMBTest match
>
>
>