Lambda behaving differently than anonymous inner class

[Sam Pullara]

I think there was some discussion about whether the lambda parameters should be final. I still think they should have been.  Sam    

---Sent from Boxer | http://getboxer.com

On 03/26/2014 05:56 PM, Dan Smith wrote:

> Thanks for the report.  The bug is filed here:

>

> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038420

>

> —Dan



Yes, definitively a bug !



Victor, modify a parameter inside a lambda is something weird|.||

   Supplier<Integer>s2 =t ->t++;|

means

|  Supplier<Integer>s2 =t ->{

t = t + 1;

     return t;

   };

|so this is equivalent to|

   Supplier<Integer>s2 =t ->t+ 1;|



cheers,

Rémi



>

> On Mar 26, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Victor Antunes <victor.antunes.ignacio at gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Hello all,

>>

>> This e-mail is a follow-up to a question I've posted on StackOverflow:

>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22648079/lambda-behaving-differently-than-anonymous-inner-class

>>

>>

>> I'm relatively new to Java, and decided to pick up on lambda since the past

>> few days. So I wrote a very simple anonymous inner class and wrote an

>> equivalent lambda.

>>

>> However, the lambda output was different, and it very strongly appears to

>> be a bug.

>>

>> Given:

>>

>> interface Supplier<T> {

>>

>>     T get(T t);}

>>

>> Supplier<Integer> s1 = new Supplier<Integer>() {

>>     @Override

>>     public Integer get(Integer t) {

>>         return t++;

>>     }};Supplier<Integer> s2 = t ->

>> t++;System.out.println(s1.get(2));System.out.println(s2.get(2));

>>

>> The output is 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 2, as one would expect.

>>

>> More info, including discussion about bytecode is available at the SO link

>> above.

>>

>> I'm also new to this list, so apologies if I've broken any mailing list

>> etiquette.

>>

>> --  
>> Kind regards,

>>

>> Victor Antunes

>>

>