Project Lambda: Java Language Specification draft 0.1.5
schulz at the-loom.de
Tue Feb 16 01:22:05 PST 2010
On16.02.2010 09:45, Paul Benedict wrote:
> My only advice is to keep simplicity and the obvious in mind. I think
> the "object.()" syntax violates the principle of least surprise -- I
> was surprised to suddenly see method calls without a method name. The
> decision does make sense within context, but it is obscure and
> esoteric; I think it's too much of a break with the past. If you
> really believe that the "object.()" syntax is the best, I'll trust
> your decision (i.e., having a doctorate, working on C#, etc.) but I
> wanted to raise my objection still.
I second that. The tiny dot gets lost in the noise of symbols and
actually only saves from typing two or so characters. I don't think it's
worth introducing this faulty looking syntax for a really marginal gain.
If it cannot be made function-invocation syntax, I'd advocate for making
it Java style rather than going Perl-like.
More information about the lambda-dev