> On 18 Nov 2016, at 08:46, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr > <mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr>> wrote: > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "Martin Buchholz" <marti...@google.com <mailto:marti...@google.com>> > > À: "Paul Sandoz" <paul.san...@oracle.com <mailto:paul.san...@oracle.com>> > > Cc: "core-libs-dev" <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net > > <mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>> > > Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Novembre 2016 05:29:12 > > Objet: Re: RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 12 > > [..] > > > >> 317 c.forEach(e -> addLast(e)); > >> > >> this::addLast, up to you which you prefer > >> > >> > > Meh. Left as is; another vote could tip to the other side. > > > > > > I like the rule that says, use a method reference if you can and a lambda > otherwise. > so i vote for this::addLast :) > > > Done! Seems like a good rule to adopt. >
And FWIW you will get slightly less byte code in the compiled class, because there is no lambda body to de-sugar. Paul.
