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 w
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 g
- 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
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
reco
On 20/09/18 21:22, Alex Buckley wrote:
On 9/20/2018 1:08 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
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
On 9/20/2018 1:08 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
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 me
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)
Mau
> 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 < [ mailt
> 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 < [ mailt
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? …")
T
ukas Eder
> Subject: JEP draft: Concise Method Bodies - extend this to local functions?
> Date: September 19, 2018 at 4:44:04 PM EDT
> To: amber-spec-comme...@openjdk.java.net
>
> Hello,
>
> I've just seen this new JEP draft, which really looks very useful:
> http://
11 matches
Mail list logo
