Lambda syntax puzzler

[Remi Forax]

On 10/17/2013 08:53 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>
>
> On 10/16/13 7:05 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>> With the proposal of Stuart, you need to introduce a new local variable
>> (array, start, end) -> {
>>     for(int i = start; i < end; i++) {
>>       ... array[i] ...
>>     }
>> }
>
> Oh crap, I shouldn't have opened my big mouth.
>
> My statement about making formal parameters implicitly final wasn't a 
> proposal, nor did I intend to reopen this conversation. It was a flip 
> comment based on a stylistic pet peeve of mine.
>
> Turns out this was discussed extensively last year on lambda-dev in a 
> thread started by Venkat S. [1] I either missed this or had forgotten 
> about it. There were a fair number of people who thought it was 
> reasonable, but there were questions about how beneficial it would be, 
> plus there was the usual fractal graph of related and dependent 
> issues. I suggest people go reread that thread.
>
> Sorry for the noise.
>
> s'marks
>
>
>
> [1] 
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-dev/2012-December/007280.html


doh,
I've totally forgotten that discussion too.

Rémi

>
>
>
>>
>> That's said, it's not a big issue
>>
>> cheers,
>> Rémi
>>
>>>
>>> -----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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>