Expected distribution of lambda sizes (Re: Syntax poll, take 2)

[John Nilsson]

That could be solved either by simply deciding which name wins, or by
some slight syntax change to differentiate between methods and
functions ( a method on this, for example, would be a function in the
scope of the lambda) for example #.fst #.snd would be method calls.

BR,
John

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore
<maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 15/06/11 16:00, John Nilsson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore
>> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> <T, V extends Comparable<T>>  List<V>  schwarz(List<T>  x, Function<T,
>>> Pair<T,V>>  f) {
>>>       return map(#{ w ->  f.apply(w) }, x)
>>>          .sort( Pair<T,V>#fst() )
>>>          .map( Pair<T,V>#snd() );
>>>    }
>>
>> Could this become the following even?
>>
>> <T, V extends Comparable<T>>
>> List<V>  schwarz(List<T>  x, Function<T,Pair<T,V>>  f) {
>>       return x.map(f).sort(#fst).map(#snd);
>>    }
>
> I see where you are headed, you want to use the target type in order to
> infer the receiver type of the method reference; while this seems a nice
> idea in principle, a problem I see with this is the potential ambiguity with
> this#foo (which people might want to be able to shorten to just #foo).
>
> Maurizio
>>
>> BR,
>> John
>
>