Checked exceptions within Block<T>

Stephen Colebourne scolebourne at
Sun Jan 13 04:55:09 PST 2013

On 12 January 2013 17:49, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at> wrote:
> Yes, you'd have to provide your own exceptional SAMs.  But then lambda
> conversion would work fine with them.
> The EG discussed additional language and library support for this
> problem, and in the end felt that this was a bad cost/benefit tradeoff.
> Library-based solutions cause a 2x explosion in SAM types (exceptional
> vs not), which interact badly with existing combinatorial explosions for
> primitive specialization.
> The available language-based solutions were losers from a
> complexity/value tradeoff.  Though there are some alternative solutions
> we are going to continue to explore -- though clearly not for 8 and
> probably not for 9 either.

Did the EG consider turning off checked exceptions, removing them from
the language? AFAIK its backwards compatible, and many of us would
greatly welcome it.

(I'm happy that lambda makes no special provision for checked
exception as it will encourage even more people to use


More information about the lambda-dev mailing list