[lambda-leftovers] Underscore parameter for abstract/native methods

Brian Goetz brian.goetz at oracle.com
Sat Jul 1 12:39:25 UTC 2017

No, nothing stopping us from starting at A and then going to B/C/D.

On 6/30/2017 7:57 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Is there something that prevents us to go from, say A to C/D in steps, 
> rather than all at once?
> Seems to be that, being A about being conservative, it should keep 
> most doors open for whatever extension of '_' we might plan in the 
> future. Am I missing something?
> Maurizio
> On 30/06/17 23:04, John Rose wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> And once we bring in methods, it raises tooling questions like "what 
>>> about Javadoc." So maybe the last step was the problem.
>> If it's only javadoc that's the problem, then that's an easy call:
>> we should Inconvenience the javadoc authors if it will help a
>> tiny fraction of java developers.
>> In fact, even if it is 20 tools (and it won't—e.g., reflection already
>> handles missing parameter names), it's still arguably a pure
>> question of whether it's good for developers, as long as the
>> effect on tool writers is a temporary irritant.
>> — John

More information about the amber-dev mailing list