Removal of function types

Brian Goetz brian.goetz at
Wed Jul 7 16:13:05 PDT 2010

The underlying problem with this counterexample is the need for primitive 
types.  In lots of situations, it might be reasonable to live with boxing and 
then you only need k*9^1 SAM types, but when you really need to abstract over 
primitives in this way, it becomes k*9^n for n > 1.

I don't have a good answer.  But I don't think adding function types meets the 
cost/benefit analysis as a means of solving this problem either.

On 7/7/2010 7:05 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
> On 07/07/10 13:18, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> I suggest using this thread to comment on the removal of function types :-)
> As one of the instigators-by-counter-example of function types,
> I do wonder what the plan is for providing dozens if not
> hundreds of SAM types for (parallel) aggregate operations.
> As in my infamous workarounds at:
> -Doug

More information about the lambda-dev mailing list