Stream.flatMap reference ambiguity

[Sam Pullara]

Doesn't help. You need to specify the types. It would be great if this were fixed either in the API or in the inference engine:

      List<String> ss = new ArrayList<>();
      ss.stream().flatMap((String x, Consumer<String> sink) -> {
        for (String s : x.split(",")) {
          sink.accept(s);
        }
      });

Sam

On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David Hartveld <david at hartveld.net> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I just ran into the following problem with flatMap: the compiler
>> (lambda-b78) is not able to infer the correct overload for flatMap.
>> 
>> The code:
>> 
>> List<String> ss = new ArrayList<>();
>> ss.stream().flatMap((x, sink) -> {
>> for (String s : x.split(",")) {
>> sink.accept(s);
>> }
>> });
> 
> This example is not very realistic, since the result of flatMap() is
> not used, the code doesn't really do anything. What if it's assigned
> to a `Stream<String>`?
> 
>> The compiler output:
>> 
>> FlatMapTest.java:[38,28] reference to flatMap is ambiguous
>> both method flatMap(java.util.stream.FlatMapper.ToLong<? super T>) in
>> java.util.stream.Stream and method
>> flatMap(java.util.stream.FlatMapper.ToDouble<? super T>) in
>> java.util.stream.Stream match
>> FlatMapTest.java:[40,37] method accept in interface
>> java.util.function.LongConsumer cannot be applied to given types;
>> required: long
>> found: java.lang.String
>> reason: argument mismatch; java.lang.String cannot be converted to long
>> 
>> This can be solved by typing the lambda parameters (actually, exactly that
>> is done in the default implementation of Stream.flatMap(Function<T,
>> Stream<? extends R>>).
>> 
>> Is this a bug/unimplemented inference situation? If not, I would prefer a
>> rename of the flatMap overloads that return a primitive stream (these cause
>> the ambiguity, right?). I think it is confusing that, when using the Stream
>> API (or any other coherent API), you have to specify types in some lambdas,
>> and not in others - I find this confusing, and it probably is even more so
>> for less advanced programmers.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for a great-looking update to the JDK!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> David Hartveld
>> 
>