Lambda syntax puzzler

[Remi Forax]

On 10/17/2013 12:10 PM, Sam Pullara wrote:
> I’m ok with this. It is trivial to do the transformation from an inner class that mutates its parameters to a lambda that doesn’t.
>
> I still would like the variable name scoping to change though at this late date I don’t expect that to happen. It is very common in the Scala code bases I have seen to reuse the outside name as the inside name, now there will be some ugly convention that adds a number or a _ or something.

yes, I agree, it's very painful.
I fail to convince the other EG members that it was an important issue 
during the latest face to face meeting.
I still hope that when people will start using new APIs that massively 
use lambdas, this rule will be removed.

>
> Sam

Rémi

>
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2013 03:43 PM, Millies, Sebastian wrote:
>>> 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
>> I think that the main issue I see, is that there is no Java keyword for
>> saying 'not final',
>> so if by example you have a method that calls a lambda with the bounds
>> of a partition of an array, you can not write a code like this:
>> (array, i, end) -> {
>>   for(; i < end; i++) {
>>     ... array[i] ...
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> 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] ...
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>