Re: GWT 2.8 Compiler Question for Streams

2015-12-29 Thread Juan Pablo Gardella
stream() method is not mentioned in http://www.gwtproject.org/doc/latest/RefJreEmulation.html#Package_java_util. Maybe this is the reason. On 29 December 2015 at 12:22, Paul Mazzuca wrote: > Any reason why I would be receiving a compiler error in the code below? > > >

Re: GWT 2.8 Compiler Question for Streams

2015-12-29 Thread Paul Mazzuca
It appears that you are correct. I misread the posts the first time I searched. Thanks for the quick clarification. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Juan Pablo Gardella < gardellajuanpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's not supported in GWT 2.8: > -

Re: GWT 2.8 Compiler Question for Streams

2015-12-29 Thread Paul Mazzuca
That reference is for the "latest", which I am assuming is still for 2.7, not 2.8? On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Juan Pablo Gardella < gardellajuanpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > stream() method is not mentioned in > http://www.gwtproject.org/doc/latest/RefJreEmulation.html#Package_java_util. >

Re: GWT 2.8 Compiler Question for Streams

2015-12-29 Thread Juan Pablo Gardella
I think it's not supported in GWT 2.8: - https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-web-toolkit/SuLcOTeJkyo - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15693169/java-8-support-in-gwt On 29 December 2015 at 12:30, Paul Mazzuca wrote: > That reference is for the "latest",

GWT 2.8 Compiler Question for Streams

2015-12-29 Thread Paul Mazzuca
Any reason why I would be receiving a compiler error in the code below? //compiles this.mybutton.addClickHandler(c -> *dosomething()*); //does not compile Arrays.asList("one", "two").stream(); I am using the beta Maven release of GWT 2.8 with jdk 1.8.0_60 and am using super dev mode.

Re: GWT 2.8 Compiler Question for Streams

2015-12-29 Thread Pablo Nussembaum
You can still use Guava functional idioms in particular FluentIterable [1] gives you a more java8 feeling [1] http://google.github.io/guava/releases/snapshot/api/docs/com/google/common/collect/FluentIterable.html On 29/12/15 15:43, Paul Mazzuca wrote: > It appears that you are correct. I