Typed Method handles

[Rémi Forax]

On 06/14/2011 01:02 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>   >  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

and interopt with JSR 292 method handle.

Rémi

>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>