Re: why no function types?

[Remi Forax]

It can be translated to a reified function type but using a SAM type is more explicit (no need to add new ruled in the JLS).
Designers can choose if an IntReducer or a Reducer<Integer> is better for a specific API.

cheers,
Rémi

Sent from my Phone

----- Reply message -----
From: "Neal Gafter" <neal at gafter.com>
To: "Remi Forax" <forax at univ-mlv.fr>
Cc: "maurizio cimadamore" <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>, <lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Subject: why no function types?
Date: Thu, Mar 8, 2012 19:26
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?