JEP proposed to target JDK 11: 323: Local-Variable Syntax for Lambda Parameters (original) (raw)

Jonathan Bluett-Duncan jbluettduncan at gmail.com
Fri Jan 26 14:02:52 UTC 2018

Hi Andrew,

I admit I'm a bit lost. I struggle to see how the following:

Function<Integer, Integer> function = (@Nullable x) -> (x == null) ? 0 : x

would be any better than:

Function<@Nullable Integer, @Nonnull Integer> function = x -> (x == null) ? 0 : x + 1;

or even just the following (if we make the reasonable assumption that everything is non-null by default):

Function<@Nullable Integer, Integer> function = x -> (x == null) ? 0 : x + 1;

Is there something I'm missing here? :)

Cheers, Jonathan

On 26 January 2018 at 13:54, Andrew Dinn <adinn at redhat.com> wrote:

On 26/01/18 13:47, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote: > Hmm, is that not what variables like the following are for? > > Function<@Nullable Integer, @Nonnull Integer> function = x -> (x == null) ? > 0 : x + 1;

My, how old-school having to actually inscribe in your program the semantics you intend for your code, plain for all to see and comprehend, when a super-smart (TM) compiler can simply invent them for you out of thin^H^H^H^H abundant white space. Look how many characters it requires to make your intentions clear. Not to mention the amount of thought required in order to be able to express them explicitly. This is progress and it cannot be resisted. regards,

Andrew Dinn ----------- Senior Principal Software Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list