Method references with types [Re: lambda syntax tutorial]
forax at univ-mlv.fr
Fri Aug 6 08:30:36 PDT 2010
Le 06/08/2010 00:09, Nathan Bryant a écrit :
> Remi Forax wrote:
>> Also note that even if you use an Integer in the signature, the VM
>> is already able to not do the corresponding boxing
>> (see one of the last mail of Fredrik on this list).
> The PowerPoint I saw dealt with adding function types to the VM as basically a type annotation on MethodHandle, which would be renamed Function. (A proposal I support, as it makes MethodHandles a first class citizen, not something that is only really useful to compiler backend writers.)
I was refering to the demo page 30 of the slides,
This example in particular:
Integer c = mh.<Integer>invoke((Integer)3, 3);
There is a boxing and this boxing can be removed because
the method reference is declared with an int.
MethodHandle by itself is not very useful in plain old Java because it's
method handle is a kind of how the reflection API should have been done,
so it's truly faster than reflection but like reflection it's not typesafe.
I see lambda SAM conversion as a thin typesafe wrapper on top of method
We get the backward compatibility with most of the legacy code
that deal with SAM types in the same move.
But we lost function types during the battle :(
> In this case, the compiler is able to remove the primitives. However, the more general box/unbox elimination optimization has not been implemented yet either in JDK7 or in any publically released version of JRockit. It also depends on the ability to inline.
jdk7 has escape analysis and you're right it depends if the callsite is
monomorphic and inlinable.
More information about the lambda-dev