> Brian thinks this causes a problem with overloading because of erasure, > but I don't think that's as big a problem as having to name all these > interfaces. It's relatively easy to avoid overloading. >
Amusing, considering that he also wants to name the methods of functional interfaces more inconsistently to make it easier to implement multiple functional interfaces (a requirement which has never arisen (nor posed to be an issue) in those languages which chose consistent names from the beginning), which wouldn't be a problem in the first case if there were a sane, lower-level interface for functions (which would also be great for interop which also multiple people mentioned on the mailing list.) Looks like they painted themselves into a very unfortunate language design corner by letting their fear of boxing/unboxing costs rule over correctness and simplicity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/tEGjg-ElFrkJ. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
