so when you use an anonymous class, the lifetime of the enclosing this is extended for no good reason. The usual issue it to have a code that relies on the finalizer to close a system resource (which is not a good idea) that fails to close the resource because the is captured by the anonymous class. Lambdas do not have this weird behavior. We have discussed about allowing static in front of a local class but there is no way to ask for a static anonymous class.
We've already laid the groundwork for that; the recent changes to allow for local interfaces/records/enums included some spec wording for static local members, even though you can't say `static` in all these places. I'd like to address this as part of a more comprehensive scoping-alignment; the inner-class thing seems mostly a separate (and small) feature.
and i would prefer to keep that syntax available if at some point in the future we decide to allow classes (or perhaps just record) to be initialized in a literal way.
Agree, I think the "return on syntax" here is limited.
