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

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On 15/06/11 18:17, John Nilsson wrote:
> 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.
Another idea:

Pair<>#fst

Maurizio
> 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
>>