Hiding the lambda proxy frame

[Robert Field]

Another take on naming, to some extent the "run" call is documenting the 
SAM call, or would be with a better name:

java.lang.Throwable
       StackTraceTest.lambda$0(StackTraceTest.java:6)
       StackTraceTest$$Lambda$*Runnable*.run(Unknown Source)     <--- 
not ugly, is it
       StackTraceTest.main(StackTraceTest.java:8)

And that name is stable.

-Robert


On 6/11/13 9:21 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 03:22 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> Why wouldn't you bring this to the EG list instead?
>
> Sure, it was an implementation detail for me, hence the post on 
> lambda-dev.
>
> So from lambda-dev:
> Currently when you print a stacktrace that show a call inside a lambda,
> users can see the the frame corresponding to the method of the generated
> proxy.
>
> By example:
> java.lang.Throwable
>       StackTraceTest.lambda$0(StackTraceTest.java:6)
>       StackTraceTest$$Lambda$1.run(Unknown Source)     <--- ugly, 
> isn't it
>       StackTraceTest.main(StackTraceTest.java:8)
>
> I think this line should not be visible to user, it doesn't provide 
> useful information,
> just make the stack trace longer than it should.
>
> There is an annotation LambdaForm.Hidden that you can use to mark method
> that should be hidden when dumping the stack trace.
> (Maybe the annotation should be a top-level by the way, add John in CC 
> given
> he is the creator of this annotation)
>
> This part was not in the original mail:
> Moreover, offline, one of my friend point me to a presentation of 
> Jamie Allen
> http://jaxenter.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-lambdas-by-jamie-allen-47356.html 
>
> on the same subject at JAXConf 2013. I've just finished to see it.
>
> He raises a good point that the compiler translation should try to 
> provide a better name.
> By example,
>   Runnable myRunnable = () -> System.out.println("hello");
> should result in a lambda that instead to be called "lambda$0",
> instead the compiler should try to name it something like 
> lambda$myRunnable
> (or lambda$myRunnable0, ..., if there is a collision) if it's possible.
>
> I think we already discuss about something like that in the light of 
> serialization,
> but not in the stack trace context.
>
> Rémi
>
>