Details

JEP

Status: Closed

P3

Resolution: Delivered

Brian Goetz

Feature

Open

SE


XS

XS

323
Description
Summary
Allow var
to be used when declaring the formal parameters of implicitly typed lambda expressions.
Goals
 Align the syntax of a formal parameter declaration in an implicitly typed lambda expression with the syntax of a local variable declaration.
Nongoals
 Align the syntax of any other kind of variable declaration, e.g., a formal parameter of a method, with the syntax of a local variable declaration.
Motivation
A lambda expression may be implicitly typed, where the types of all its formal parameters are inferred:
(x, y) > x.process(y) // implicitly typed lambda expression
Java SE 10 makes implicit typing available for local variables:
var x = new Foo();
for (var x : xs) { ... }
try (var x = ...) { ... } catch ...
For uniformity with local variables, we wish to allow 'var' for the formal parameters of an implicitly typed lambda expression:
(var x, var y) > x.process(y) // implicit typed lambda expression
One benefit of uniformity is that modifiers, notably annotations, can be applied to local variables and lambda formals without losing brevity:
@Nonnull var x = new Foo();
(@Nonnull var x, @Nullable var y) > x.process(y)
Description
For formal parameters of implicitly typed lambda expressions, allow the reserved type name var
to be used, so that:
(var x, var y) > x.process(y)
is equivalent to:
(x, y) > x.process(y)
An implicitly typed lambda expression must use var
for all its formal parameters or for none of them. In addition, var
is permitted only for the formal parameters of implicitly typed lambda expressions  explicitly typed lambda expressions continue to specify manifest types for all their formal parameters, so it is not permitted for some formal parameters to have manifest types while others use var
. The following examples are illegal:
(var x, y) > x.process(y) // Cannot mix 'var' and 'no var' in implicitly typed lambda expression
(var x, int y) > x.process(y) // Cannot mix 'var' and manifest types in explicitly typed lambda expression
In theory, it would be possible to have a lambda expression like the last line above, which is semiexplicitly typed (or semiimplicitly typed, depending on your point of view). However, it is outside the scope of this JEP because it deeply affects type inference and overload resolution. This is the main reason for keeping the restriction that a lambda expression must specify all manifest parameter types or none. We also want to enforce that the type inferred for a parameter of an implicitly typed lambda expression is the same whether var
is used or not. We may return to the problem of partial inference in a future JEP. Also, we do not wish to compromise the brevity of the shorthand syntax, so we won't allow expressions like:
var x > x.foo()
Alternatives
Continue declaring implicitly typed lambda expressions as in Java SE 8.
Risks and Assumptions
This JEP has no risk of source incompatibility when var
is added before a parameter name in an implicitly typed lambda expression, because the type inferred for the parameter without var
is the same as the type inferred with var
.
Attachments
Issue Links
 relates to

JDK8151454 JEP 286: LocalVariable Type Inference
 Closed

JDK8196589 add compiler support for localvariable syntax for lambda parameters
 Closed

JDK8206943 15.27.1: Allow var in lambda parameters
 Resolved