Re: RFC: Anonymous Classes

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Terence Copestake < terence.copestake@gmail.com> wrote: > Playing devil's advocate here, could this feature make the language more > expressive? > > Take for example an API where you'd typically wrap a method call in > try/catch blocks to handle the various "outcomes" e.g. a user login, you'd > maybe have a UserDisabled exception, a UserAlreadyLoggedIn exception, a > UserPasswordIncorrect exception, etc. > > With the addition of this syntactic sugar, the method could instead accept > an anonymous class with a onDisabled, onLoggedIn, onPasswordIncorrect > methods. > > Perhaps it would also have a performance benefit over cascading through > catch blocks? Though someone else would have to confirm that. > Why wouldn't you want this to a concrete, real class? I don't see the benefit, in your example, of doing an anonymous class vs defining an actual class and passing that in as the handler.