Expressiveness of function types naming

[Mike Duigou]

The current names are not final nor have they been officially proposed to the lambda expert group for final ratification.

On Sep 20 2011, at 09:04 , Paigan Jadoth wrote:

> Block:

The intent for the name Block is that it corresponds to a basic block ie. 

{
  [statement;]+
}

There is an intended correspondance between 

for(Foo each : foos) {
  bar(each);
}

and 

foos.forEach(each -> {bar(each);});

> Hence, I'd suggest renaming "Block" to "Operation" and Block#apply() to
> Operation#execute()

Operation seems too ambiguous to me.

Mike