Named lambdas (was Re: Serialization stability and naming (and syntax))

Kevin Bourrillion kevinb at
Tue Oct 9 08:40:24 PDT 2012

Okay, so the benefits of user-provided names seem to be

- More readable toString and stack traces than the auto-provided name
(lambda#8 or whatever)
- A very small (as noted by Brian) potential to make serialization usable
across code changes in a few more situations
- It should apparently help hot-swapping to be usable in a few more

Anything else?

If we come up with some syntax for users to name individual lambda
expressions, do we think these benefits are great enough that enough users
will name their lambdas enough of the time to get real benefit?  I'm
unsure.  Even though lambdas are way more concise than classes, this
supreme terseness of lambda expressions is sort of intoxicating and I
wonder if most users will get drunk on that and not want any extra
characters that weren't strictly required.

Likewise, to the extent that any of the advantages can also be realized by
switching to a method reference, do we think enough users will actually be
willing to make that switch?

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Andrey Breslav <
andrey.breslav at> wrote:

> I would like to point out one thing that somehow keeps escaping our
> discussions of this matter.
> Although for some people serialization is the biggest concern here, for a
> lot more people a much bigger concern is hot-swapping, where name stability
> is very important as well.
> In my mind, this requires us to reconsider the arguments for having/not
> having stable names/signatures where we could have that.
> --
> Andrey Breslav
> Develop with pleasure!

Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the lambda-spec-experts mailing list