Loss of conciseness due to overload ambiguity

[Venkat Subramaniam]

Hi Maurizio,

That would be great. I ran into the same issue when I used lambdas instead of method references also, so both may need an
uplift in this area.

Thanks,

Venkat

On Jan 9, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:

> We are considering ways to mitigate this; if the method reference is unambiguous (only one match) there are facts that can be used to achieve more overload resolution precision (pretty much what we do with implicit lambdas - where we use arity to prune unwanted candidates).
> 
> Maurizio
> 
> On 09/01/13 17:07, Venkat Subramaniam wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Is there a way to gain the desired conciseness in the following case?
>> 
>>     List<Person> people = Arrays.asList(
>>       new Person("Kate", 10),
>>       new Person("Jack", 10)
>>     );
>>          Function<Person, String> byName = person -> person.getName();
>> 
>>     people.stream().sorted(comparing(byName)).into(new ArrayList<>());
>>     //[Jack - 10, Kate - 10]
>>          people.stream().sorted(comparing(Person::getName)).into(new ArrayList<>());
>>            /*
>>       error: reference to comparing is ambiguous
>>           people.stream().sorted(comparing(Person::getName)).into(new ArrayList<>());
>>                                    ^
>>         both method <T#1>comparing(IntFunction<? super T#1>) in Comparators and method <T#2,U>comparing(Function<? super T#2,? extends U>) in Comparators match
>>         where T#1,T#2,U are type-variables:
>>           T#1 extends Object declared in method <T#1>comparing(IntFunction<? super T#1>)
>>           T#2 extends Object declared in method <T#2,U>comparing(Function<? super T#2,? extends U>)
>>           U extends Comparable<? super U> declared in method <T#2,U>comparing(Function<? super T#2,? extends U>)
>>       1 error
>>            */
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Venkat
>> 
>