Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: new Java lambda syntax
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:04:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <j4o9rt$i0g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <j4b80q$u30$1@dont-email.me> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109101445260.18967@urchin.earth.li> <llbsj8-b59.ln1@news.simpsonst.f2s.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109111255530.13018@urchin.earth.li> <9j3vj8-aqe.ln1@news.simpsonst.f2s.com> <j4item$o69$1@news.albasani.net> <tsdvj8-vbg.ln1@news.simpsonst.f2s.com> <j4jbgt$i60$1@dont-email.me> <j4m6o0$t69$1@dont-email.me> <j4meun$99r$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:10:53 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="XRSCqgy0qluJowbbOaLA6Q"; logging-data="18448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/iJrPn3Q5LGOdWwY4gfCRu"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14
In-Reply-To: <j4meun$99r$1@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C532r+GDX7Fkn+beYcXBsFWLBgA=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:7982

On 13/09/2011 04:24, Joshua Cranmer allegedly wrote:
> On 9/12/2011 7:00 PM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>> On 12/09/2011 00:07, Joshua Cranmer allegedly wrote:
>>>
>>> List<Runnable>  runners = new LinkedList<Runnable>();
>>> for (int i = 0; i<  10; i++) {
>>>    runners.add(() =>  { System.out.println("Value of i is " + i); });
>>> }
>>> for (Runnable r : runners) {
>>>    r.run();
>>> }
>>
>> Beg your pardon, I haven't followed this issue as closely as I probably
>> have should, but does this all mean lambdas are always Runnables? Never
>> Callable<T>s? IOW, no return values?
> 
> No, I just opted for Runnable here because it was simple.
> 

Okay, so you can have a lambda returning a value? Steve Simpson's statement:

> There's no (...) long jumps (break, continue, return, throw)

seemed to contradict that, as did Tom's about the "Gafterist nonsense"
(<3), seeing how Gafter et al.'s proposal contained return values, IIRC.

I mean, if they cannot return values, I'm a bit at a loss understanding
how they'll be the nec plus ultra for parallel computing... you'd
publish results to a shared queue, I suppose, but that's a bit unhandy.

-- 
DF.
Determinism trumps correctness.