Hello, Kevin!
Yes, it's a little bit hard to migrate between block body - expression body
- method reference. However we already have this problem in lambdas, and we
are living with this without much hassle. That's because every decent IDE
can convert between these forms for you.
Btw IDEA has an
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),
Yes, unqualified method references have been on our radar since Java 8,
and yes, we know that local methods
On 9/20/2018 2:16 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
yes, but in your example the return type is not the same, i prefer mine
class Utils {
Function fun() = this::bar;
Function fun2() -> this::bar;
Function bar() { return null; }
String bar(String s) { return null; }
}
Yes, it's
- Mail original -
> De: "Maurizio Cimadamore"
> À: "Alex Buckley" , "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 20 Septembre 2018 22:28:42
> Objet: Re: JEP draft: Concise Method Bodies - extend this to local functions?
> On 20/09/18 21:22, Alex Buckley wrote:
>> On 9/20/2018 1:08 PM,
On 9/20/2018 1:28 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
Function fun() = Utils::bar;
Function fun = Utils::bar;
(first is method body, second is variable initializer)
I think Remi is noting the fact that, when using `->`, the single
expression can be a method reference expression. I have already
On 9/20/2018 12:05 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
In this case, I think the `=/` /form /might/ also clear that bar because
of the automatic parameter pass-through. But I cannot currently see how
the `->` form comes close to clearing it.
(Data welcome.)
Ooh, you know the magic words! Okay,
On 20/09/18 20:05, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
In this case, I think the `=/` /form /might/ also clear that bar
because of the automatic parameter pass-through. But I cannot
currently see how the `->` form comes close to clearing it.
Not sure I get it - surely every getter might benefit form
On 20/09/18 17:32, Remi Forax wrote:
There is also a potential confusion between
Function fun() = Utils::bar;
and
Function fun() -> Utils::bar;
You meant between
Function fun() = Utils::bar;
and
Function fun = Utils::bar;
?
(first is method body, second is variable initializer)
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:44 PM Alex Buckley
wrote:
On 9/19/2018 12:31 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
> > In other cases, it looks like you're gaining a very /small/ amount of
> > syntactic conciseness (mostly omitting `return`) and not much else? Is
> > there any actual /conceptual/ simplicity or
> De: "John Rose"
> À: "Brian Goetz"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> 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 ] >
> De: "John Rose"
> À: "Brian Goetz"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> 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 ] >
On Sep 19, 2018, at 6:23 PM, Brian Goetz 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? …")
12 matches
Mail list logo
