Typed Method handles

[Brian Goetz]

 > Really, method literal are off limits? I'm sorry I must have missed 
that. I
 > remember Field literals were hotly contested and considered out of scope.
 > Please excuse my recent references to method literals.

I think that's just a "wires crossed" thing -- method references are 
still on the list.  Field references are off the list (were never on) -- 
that's probably what he was referring to.

 > Is there an official list somewhere so I can stay on track?

The plan as it currently stands:
  - Lambda expressions
  - SAM conversion
  - Type inference of lambda formals
  - Four kinds of method references (static, instance, unbound instance, 
constructor)
  - Extension/Defender methods
  - New methods on collections for map/reduce/forEach/etc


On 6/13/2011 6:49 PM, Collin Fagan wrote:
> *are not being addressed in the lambda list... method literals*
>
> Really, method literal are off limits? I'm sorry I must have missed that. I
> remember Field literals were hotly contested and considered out of scope.
> Please excuse my recent references to method literals.
>
> Is there an official list somewhere so I can stay on track?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Collin
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Paulo Silveira - Caelum<
> paulo.silveira at caelum.com.br>  wrote:
>
>> 2011/6/13 Jack Moxley<jack at moxley.co.uk>:
>>> I have not seen any rudeness can we try and keep the emotions under wraps
>> rather than using paranoid perceptions of inter-corporate rivalry to dismiss
>> out of hand a fairly valid point?
>>
>> Maybe it is just my bad english comprehension. Sorry about the
>> corporate perceptions.
>>
>> The spec leaders  have already made crystal clear that some points, even
>> valid
>> ones, are not being addressed in the lambda list, such as reified
>> generics, method literals, etc.
>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Jun 2011, at 23:01, Paulo Silveira - Caelum<
>> paulo.silveira at caelum.com.br>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2011/6/9 Neal Gafter<neal at gafter.com>:
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Brian Goetz<brian.goetz at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> and while erased function types may seem better than nothing now, so
>> did
>>>>>> erased generics way back when...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can have reified function types in the
>>>>>> future, then this will be an obvious place to backfill this
>> association.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And if we can't, then we'll regret not doing it today.
>>>>
>>>> We will regret if they try to reify generics in JSR 335. It probably
>>>> would take a lot of time and end up splitting Java (again) in Java 8
>>>> and 9, and having lambda only in Java 9+.
>>>>
>>>> The guys  here are doing an incredible work to have lambda not
>>>> delayed, and I really do not understand why Neal Gafter keeps being so
>>>> rude on the list. It is not the first time.
>>>>
>>>> This is a top-notch tech list, where we can lear a lot from the spec
>>>> leaders and experts, which are sharing everything they can. It is a
>>>> pity to have Google-Oracle tensions around.
>>>>
>>>> Paulo
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>