Syntax decision

[Henri Gerrits]

Of course there is also the bitwise OR operator to consider.
I think the parser's lookahead should be able to handle these potential syntactical complications.

But do you really NEED a no-arg placeholder?

BTW: the C# syntax posted by Brian originally does seem to allow the '()' syntax either:

>      > The C# syntax is:
>      >
>      >    lambda = ArgList Arrow Body
>      >    ArgList = Identifier
>      >              | "(" Identifier [ "," Identifier ]* ")"
>      >              | "(" Type Identifier [ "," Type Identifier ]* ")"
>      >    Body = Expression
>      >              | "{" [ Statement ";" ]+ "}"

I must add I'm new to this discussion.

Henri

----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org>
> To: lambda-dev <lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Syntax decision
> 
> On 28 September 2011 16:24, Henri Gerrits <henrigerrits at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Since the cast syntax can't be touched, one way out could be to change 
> the arg delimiters for the lambda, e.g.;
>> 
>> |x, y| -> x + y;
>> 
>> Personally, I find this a bit more readable when the lambda is provided as 
> an argument to a method or constructor:
>> 
>> c.sort(|x, y| -> x > y);
>> 
>> instead of:
>> 
>> c.sort((x, y) -> x > y);
>> 
>> But I'm sure you will already have considered (and rejected) 
> '|'.
> 
> Since  the decision is to go away from familiar things in Java (as
> opposed to #() {stmt}), I might also favour:
>   |x, y| -> x + y
> 
> It is a lot clearer in many ways in complicated situations, and would
> be beter for the eye in finding the target of "return" statements.
> 
> I don't know without looking closer whether this is sufficiently
> distinguishable from OR however:
>   || -> expr
> 
> Stephen
>