PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals (original) (raw)

Neal Gafter neal at gafter.com
Wed Mar 11 16:58:52 PDT 2009

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:

>> In summary, the real question with the proposal is whether we can >> implement member literals independently of method references and >> closures? The answer is definitely yes if we use the ## syntax, and >> probably yes if we use #. > Is there something I should mention in the proposal?

I think the proposal needs to note that a resolution of the potential conflict with method reference/eta expansion is required. This could to let later changes handle it, to accept method references are boxed, or to use a different syntax. Perhaps there is another option too. (I know Neal has some concerns on this conflict of syntax)

I may regret saying this later, but I am not concerned about the potential conflict. I believe we can use the exact same syntax and distinguish whether it should be a java.lang.reflect.Method or a closure from context.  Since we're doing Method first, it would take priority (just like a method invocation that requires no boxing is preferred during overload resolution to one that requires some argument to be boxed).

More information about the coin-dev mailing list