line numbers policy change for "multiline" expressions

[Brian Goetz]

As in, Stream.peek()?

On 1/27/2014 8:38 PM, Howard Lovatt wrote:
> Unfortunately lazy evaluation and FLUENT, e.g. Streams, and the current
> debugger do not go well together. The problem is that you need to be able
> to observe the transformations as they happen down the chain of calls.
> Therefore I doubt it is worth changing the line numbers, better to put
> effort into a new debugging tool that works well with lazy, FLUENT APIs.
>
>   -- Howard.
>
>
> On 28 January 2014 09:27, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 01/27/2014 04:05 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>>> Am 27.01.2014 15:16, schrieb Remi Forax:
>>>> Hi Anna,
>>>> this change is unlikely be reverted, otherwise for a code like the one
>>>> below,
>>>> the lambda body will not have the right line number.
>>>>
>>>> list.stream()
>>>>         .filter(....)
>>>>         .map(x -> Integer.toString(x))
>>>>         .collect(...);
>>>
>>> I wished there would be some kind of spec for how the bytecode has to
>>> look like for the debugger to be able to have breakpoints and step
>>> debugging. At least the conditions for the former seems to differ from
>>> the later.
>>
>> + 1
>>
>>>
>>> bye Jochen
>>>
>>
>> Rémi
>>
>>
>>
>
>