why no function types?

[Neal Gafter]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:

> by example,
>  Runnable[] array = { () -> { foo(); } };
> is Ok (overdose of parenthesis aside).
>

Wouldn't that translate into a non-generic function type under the covers,
since there are no parameter or return types?  In which case you could do
that with function types as well?