> De: "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com> > À: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Septembre 2018 15:40:19 > Objet: Re: JEP draft: Concise Method Bodies - extend this to local functions?
> On Sep 19, 2018, at 6:23 PM, Brian Goetz < [ mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com | > brian.go...@oracle.com ] > wrote: >> I think there’s more immediate payback in doing the more constrained feature >> of >> concise method bodies first. > +1 > Also, local functions seem inevitably to expand into mutually recursive groups > of locals. > ("Why can't I do factorial? …") > There are some design ideas for all that, but it's complicated enough on its > own > that it > has to be done on its own or as part of a larger project. > And FTR I am very enthusiastic about CMB's: They are a decisive improvement > in Java's ability to do software reuse at method granularity. They include > both > static and dynamic delegation as special cases, which are patterns Java hasn't > been so good at to date. I remember proposals for first-class delegation > support > in the past, and CMB's subsume those, IMO. There is also have an issue with method references because a local function has no owner type (from the Java POV, obviously there is an owner class once desugared by the compiler), class A { static void foo() { } static void m() { void foo() { } A::foo // ok A.m::foo or ::foo ?? } } One solution is to allow ::foo, which first, look for a local method, the a static method and then a method method imported by an import static. > — John Rémi
