Lambda syntax puzzler

[Millies, Sebastian]

Yes, I like that proposal as well. Only thing could suffer would be automatic conversion
of inner classes to lambdas, if those class implementations mutated their parameters.
That would not concern me. -- Sebastian

-----Original Message-----
From: lambda-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:lambda-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Zhong Yu
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 2:31 PM
To: Stuart Marks
Cc: lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Lambda syntax puzzler

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com> wrote:
> Either that, or make lambda formal parameters implicitly final. I've
> always

That is apparently a good idea with no objections; how come EG isn't adopting it? what are the concerns?

> hated code that mutated its parameters anyway.
>
> s'marks
>
> On 10/12/13 6:50 AM, Samir Talwar wrote:
>> :-D
>>
>> Now that traditional C-style `for` loops are a thing of the past, I
>> think we should expunge the increment and decrement operators from the language.
>> Python had the right idea.
>>
>> — Samir.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure that people of this list will be able to see the beauty of
>>> the following code produced by one of my students.
>>>     IntPredicate p = i -> i --> 0;
>>>
>>> Rémi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


Software AG – Sitz/Registered office: Uhlandstraße 12, 64297 Darmstadt, Germany – Registergericht/Commercial register: Darmstadt HRB 1562 - Vorstand/Management Board: Karl-Heinz Streibich (Vorsitzender/Chairman), Dr. Wolfram Jost, Arnd Zinnhardt; - Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Dr. Andreas Bereczky - http://www.softwareag.com